1. The review site is within a predominantly residential neighbourhood that comprises a mix of the original modest, single storey dwellings largely developed in the 1950's and two storey single and multiple dwellings built within the past decade.
2. There are non residential uses and built form along Tucker Road. There is a group of two storey shops on the corner of Tucker Road and McKinnon Road, approximately 130 metres to the south. The McKinnon Primary School is located on Tucker Road, approximately 300 metres to the north, and the McKinnon Secondary College fronts McKinnon Road to the site's southwest.
3. The planning policy framework guides the location of uses that are discretionary in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ). In my view, policy regards facilities such as child care centres as appropriate uses in a residential zone. The purposes of the zone includes:

To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations[2].

1. The above purpose confirms the long held planning principle that some non residential uses are appropriate in residential areas, subject to an assessment of their built form and off site amenity considerations. I agree with Mr Bisset's proposition that the introduction of the new format residential zones was an opportunity to exclude non residential uses and this opportunity has not been enacted, a clear statement by government that such uses continue to be acceptable, subject to the grant of a permit.
2. Clause 19.02 provides that social infrastructure (such as child care centres) is to be provided in a manner that is timely and accessible, partly achieved by placing facilities close to where people live.
3. Clause 19.02-4 also encourages social and cultural facilities to be located in activity centres, especially principal activity centres. Council says this is applicable to a larger child care centre. In my view this objective largely relates to locating higher order facilities that serve large catchments in places that are highly accessible and well serviced by public transport. It may apply to child care centres so they are located close to where people work or wish to use entertainment/education facilities. In my view, it should not be regarded as the preferred locations for child care facilities, and hence support for their exclusion from residential precincts, as that approach would be contrary to the purposes of the NRZ.
4. The location of child care centres in residential areas is expressly encouraged in local policy. Clause 21.08 notes that non residential uses, including child care centres, have a place in residential areas. The objectives of clause 21.08 encourage child care centres to integrate into residential zones provided there is minimum impact and loss of residential amenity and they integrate into the streetscape and neighbourhood character.
5. I am satisfied that the policy framework, supported by the purposes of the NRZ, encourages child care centres to be located within residential areas as they positively support families, play an important role in nurturing young children and enable women to participate in work and community life.
6. Clause 22.11 guides the location, design, amenity and car parking of child care centres. With regard to location, the policy encourages child care centres to have good access to public transport and other facilities. The preferred locations are in:

Housing Diversity Areas (as defined in clause 22.07 of the scheme) and/or on main and secondary roads and preferably on corner sites.

Near schools and pre-schools in Housing Diversity Areas and along main and secondary roads.

1. Child care centres are discouraged on local streets in minimal change areas and within 200 metres of an adult entertainment venue.
2. The site is within a minimal change area and is not presently on a main or secondary road. The parties agreed that Amendment C102 proposes to designate Tucker Road as a secondary road. I am advised by the parties that the amendment has been supported by a Planning Panel. Hence I regard it as a seriously entertained proposal, I give it weight, and I consider that for the purposes of this review, Tucker Road can be regarded to be a secondary road. I note that Mr Fairlie had no hesitation in regarding Tucker Road as a secondary road in terms of its place in the road network and traffic volumes, and the responsible authority and the respondents did not argue it is a local road.
3. In Perkins Architects Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [3] the Tribunal considered clause 22.11. I agree with its findings that the local policy framework encourages child care centres to be in one of three locations of equal preference. The preferred locations are within a housing diversity area, on a main road or on a secondary road. Satisfying only one of these criteria is sufficient to make it an acceptable location.
4. In my view the policy says that in addition to the above three preferred locations, it is preferable that a child care centre be located on a corner site, but this is an additional preference, but not essential. The policy also prefers that they be located near schools and preschools in housing diversity areas, but these also are not essential location requirements. The areas where they are explicitly discouraged by policy are within local streets in minimal change areas and near adult entertainment venues.
5. I think this review site performs well with the locations preferred by policy. It is on a secondary road, it is close to shops, a bus service and a primary and a secondary school. It is not near a sexually explicit entertainment venue, nor is it on a local street.
6. The responsible authority says the child care centre should be located within a housing diversity area because it is a large centre. The responsible authority says that non residential uses such a child care centre in minimal change areas should be smaller, less intensive activities than this proposal, and the larger facilities should locate in housing diversity areas. Council says that clauses 21.08 and 22.11 encourage non residential facilities such as medical clinics and child care centres to be small and operate from existing dwellings. This approach would enable dwellings to be retained (possibly for housing choice and neighbourhood character reasons) and to limit possible off site amenity impacts.
7. While I accept the policy encourages the use of existing dwellings, I am not persuaded clauses 21.08 or 22.11 explicitly distinguish between small and large facilities. Policy does not contain any indicators of intensity such as number of staff, children, floor area, car parking spaces or the like that could distinguish a large centre from a small centre.
8. Furthermore, I note that Council has had the opportunity to distinguish between larger and smaller centres. Amendment C123 proposes to amend clause 22.11 but it does not refer to larger or smaller centres. The amendment does not seek to include conditions in the table to the NRZ that could prohibit larger centres from the zone.
9. I accept the submission from the applicant that the days of child care centres, kindergartens, aged care facilities and the like operating from converted houses are almost over. The design and operation of child care centres is governed by extensive regulation to make them safe and high quality, but they also contribute to the cost of construction and operation. It may be possible to build and operate a small child care centre in a modest dwelling, but it is likely to be very expensive to develop and the fees are likely to be very high. It is very problematic whether older dwellings could be converted to comply with the current regulations that govern the size and quality of play, learning and rest areas and food storage and preparation areas. The outcome is that most contemporary child care centres need to be large to provide the service at an affordable fee and to comply with their design regulations.
10. This raises a further problem with council's proposition that such centres should locate in housing diversity areas. There may be few sites large enough to accommodate them (and the larger sites would be highly sought after for medium density housing developments). Site consolidation may be necessary, which is usually protracted and costly and often resisted on neighbourhood character grounds
11. Furthermore I see no policy directions that say that housing diversity areas are to accommodate both additional dwellings and larger non residential uses as well. Given that less than 20 percent of Glen Eira is within the housing diversity areas, such an approach is likely to have a number of disadvantages. It would be likely to increase competition for scarce land, increase land values, reduce housing affordability and increase the yield sought from developments. It would also increase the spatial separation between child care centres and the families living in the minimal change areas, making the centres less convenient and increasing travel, car dependence and fuel consumption. Suburbs would also become increasingly homogeneous, losing some of the interest and vitality that multiple land uses can bring to an area.
12. It is my view that the location of this centre, on a secondary road, near facilities and within an established residential area is appropriate, and it complies with the policy framework in the scheme. In my view, the scheme does not require centres such as this to locate only in a housing diversity area.
13. With regard to a need for the facility, the parties agree that access to convenient and affordable child care is an important factor in women's access to employment, family well being and children's development. Ms Peterson noted that the number of young children in Glen Eira has increased by 1,000 persons between 2001 and 2011, and women's participation in the workforce grew by 18 percent in the same period. She says that preliminary inquiries from her office indicate that some child care centres in Glen Eira have long waiting lists. She accepted little weight could be placed on this anecdotal information and it does not comprise a rigorous social assessment.
14. I think the matter of need has limited bearing in this review. The fact the applicant proposes to build a multi million dollar facility indicates he is confident that a need exists. I accept the need could be met in multiple locations in Glen Eira. In my view the matter of need is a positive factor that supports the approval of this facility, but it is not so urgent or have such great benefit that it outweighs matters such as its fit into the character of the neighbourhood and any off site amenity impacts. While I am satisfied the child care centre is located in accordance with policy, I turn below to the matters of neighbourhood character and off site amenity impacts.

Would the development fit into the neighbourhood and streetscape?

1. The responsible authority says the centre's width, scale, massing and site coverage would be inconsistent with the fine grain one and two storey built form and landscaping that characterises the area. It says the centre would appear as an institutional building rather than a dwelling, and so appear out of place.
2. The Tribunal has found that form follows function, and non residential buildings in residential areas do not need to replicate dwellings. A non residential building designed for activities that are non residential is likely to have a different scale and massing to a dwelling accommodating one household. A child care centre, particularly one designed to contemporary rigorous standards, is inevitably going to look somewhat different to a dwelling.
3. In Calhand v Moreland CC[4] the Tribunal found that, in allowing non residential uses in residential zones, there is an inherent tolerance that buildings designed specifically for non residential uses would appear to be somewhat different to a dwelling. The appropriate test is whether a fit for purpose building respects its context and fits into the prevailing and emerging streetscape.
4. The child care centre would have a frontage of 14.8 metres at the ground floor and 15 metres at the first floor. While this front façade would be wider than most of the existing dwellings that are close to the review site, it does not in my view make this proposal unduly out of character with the emerging streetscape in this area.
5. I consider there is an emerging context of robust, two storey built form fronting Tucker Road. There are many two storey dwellings in the area. Some have wide frontages, as they comprise two or more attached dwellings that together have a width similar to this proposal. Examples include no.229 Tucker Road (frontage in the order of 16 metres), a row of two storey dwellings at nos.276-286 Tucker Road, and five shops near McKinnon Road, all of have an attached two storey built form with widths in the order of 40 metres. In addition McKinnon Primary School has two storey buildings, although I accept these are well recessed from the street and they are in a spacious garden setting.
6. The height of the building is acceptable given the emerging two storey built form along Tucker Road. At 8.9 metres (ridge of roof) and with a wall height of 6.1 metres, it would be lower than the adjoining two storey dwelling at no.250 Tucker Road, and it would be consistent with other two storey buildings in the area.
7. I note that the height limit in the NRZ does not apply to non residential buildings, an acknowledgement that such buildings may need to be higher than a dwelling, and it is sufficient that they be respectful, but not mimic a dwelling.
8. The detailed design of the front façade and sides of the building would also integrate into the streetscape. The main walls facing the street would comprise brick cladding, behind a fence comprising stone and timber. The acoustic screening along the front façade would comprise a mix of timber battens and glazing, materials readily seen in the area. The pitched colorbond roof is respectful of the pitched, tiled roofs in the area.
9. It is proposed to construct a 1.8 metre high stone and partly transparent timber batten fence along the front boundary. Ms Peterson says in her written evidence that this fence would be too high and it should be reduced to 1.5 metres. She altered this evidence in cross examination and thought a 1.8 metre fence would be acceptable in the streetscape.
10. I agree with her written evidence and think the timer batten fence should be the lower height. The predominant fencing in this part of Tucker Road is low to mid height, and I think a long, high fence would add unnecessarily separate the centre from the public realm. I think a lower, transparent fence would assist the centre's integration with the wider streetscape without compromising the security of the centre.
11. I have no difficulty with the stone wall near the entry being 1.8 metres high as it would be a feature element integrated with the building and entryway behind.
12. The building would have generous setbacks from its boundaries, a benefit of the double block. The first floor would be set back 4.64 metres behind the front façade of the ground floor, with a total setback of 12.49 metres from the front boundary.
13. The double width lot provides the capacity to allow generous setbacks to its side and rear boundaries to offset perceived visual bulk and to be respectful of the rhythm of the streetscape. Its setbacks exceed standard B17, except for some parts of the acoustic screen where it faces the north boundary. The acoustic screening would step away from the front façade towards the side boundaries, enhancing the perception of a small front facade and generous setbacks to the side boundaries.
14. It would also have generous setbacks of 5.8 metres from the rear boundary that provide space for landscaping and reflect the setbacks in the area where buildings do extend into backyards and are sited close to their rear boundary.
15. I agree with Ms Peterson that first floor acoustic screening could be prominent and it should be diminished, either by angling it inwards above 1.2 metres height or by using transparent glazing above 1.2 metre battens. I prefer the second option of the transparent glazing above the battens as it reduces the perceived bulk, and I think that it creates a domestic feel because it would appear to be similar to balustrades on balconies. I think this should be applied in the frontage, while it is angled inwards along the northern façade to reduce its bulk to the neighbours.
16. The interface between the child care centre and the street would be landscaped with medium height vegetation and canopy trees. I think this would be a positive feature in Tucker Road, where trees in the street rather than in private front gardens comprise the primary canopy planting. In time, I consider the proposed trees would provide a domestic garden setting that would complement the street trees and enhance the building's integration into the streetscape.
17. Clause 22.11 encourages car parking to be screened from the public realm. The only car parking structures in the front setback would be the 6.1 metre wide basement ramp. While the ramp would be a new feature in Tucker Road, in my view it would not be prominent or discordant. I think most people would see it as better way to provide car parking and to provide safe child drop-off and pick-up areas compared to parking on the street.
18. I am satisfied that the height, massing, materials, roofing, landscaping and built form would be respectful of its domestic residential context and, while it would be larger, it would not be unduly prominent, intrusive or jarring in this evolving streetscape.

Would the development provide acceptable landscaping?

1. A landscape plan prepared by Botanical Traditions was submitted with the planning application. That business specialises in landscaping for child care centres, with a focus on providing interesting and safe spaces for children.
2. Mr Patrick is generally satisfied with the plan. He says the building's setbacks to the boundaries, including the basement, are generous and they would allow medium height and canopy landscaping along all boundaries. The building would not intrude into the tree root zones of vegetation on adjoining properties.
3. He concurs with Council's arborist that a large Norfolk Pine should be removed from the review site, which I understand has been approved by Council.
4. Mr Patrick recommends a number of changes to the landscape plan. He suggests a more robust species should be provided on the south of the driveway, given the site's sandy soils. He also recommends larger planters be provided along the north boundary and adjacent to the entry to the building to nurture the proposed plantings. Larger planters could also include seating to facilitate social interaction. He also says that larger planters are required at the first floor to accommodate the proposed Queensland Bottle Tree.
5. He agrees with Council's arborist that one additional tree (a total of four trees) should be planted in the front setback, with the additional tree located in the northwest corner to screen the building in oblique views across the neighbour's open front garden. In cross examination, he says a further improvement would be to install water tanks to capture rainwater to irrigate the gardens.
6. The applicant accepts Mr Patrick's recommendations, and the responsible authority accepted they would improve the viability of the landscaping.
7. I consider that, with Mr Patrick's recommendations, the proposed landscaping would provide a suitable setting for the building as seen from the public realm and from the adjoining neighbours.

Would the development impose unacceptable amenity impacts on its neighbours?

1. The responsible authority and two of the adjoining neighbours say the proposed use of the land and scale of the building would impose unacceptable amenity impacts on the neighbours[5]. These impacts would include noise from the children, visual bulk as seen from habitable rooms and secluded open space and disruption to traffic and on-street parking.

1. The respondents say noise from the children would adversely affect their use of bedrooms, family rooms and secluded open space that are close to the boundaries shared with the review site.
2. I accept child care centres could generate high noise levels. I adopt the findings of the Tribunal in Petzierides v Hobsons Bay CC that while the noise from up to 130 children can be a joyful background sound, for some people, and on some occasions it could be intrusive and detrimental to one's quiet enjoyment of a dwelling_[6]_.
3. The applicant's response to this issue is to install two metre high acoustic fencing along the site's boundaries and 2.1 metre acoustic screening around the first floor play areas. The precise design, materiality and height of the acoustic screening would be subject of an acoustic report to be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, as required by the permit.
4. I accept the applicant's submissions that the installation of acoustic screening is a tested and accepted response to manage noise from a large number of children. The responsible authority did not dispute that acoustic screening can reduce noise to acceptable levels. No acoustic evidence is before me that says acoustic screening would be likely to be ineffective.
5. I give weight to the fact that this is not the first child care centre to rely on acoustic screening to mitigate noise, and the screening is based on noise levels that are known and acoustic measures that are proven. I am persuaded that there is a high probability that the acoustic screening would be effective and be likely to reduce the noise experienced in the nearby dwellings to acceptable levels.
6. I also give weight to the centre's hours of operation. As the centre would operate only in typical business hours, and most children and staff would attend the centre after 8.00am and leave before 5.30pm, any noise would be confined to daytime in the business week. During this time the background noise levels are likely to be higher than in the evening, thereby screening to some extent the noise from the children. Adjoining residents would be unlikely to be sleeping in their bedrooms. I also understand that all the children are unlikely to use the outdoor play areas at the same time, nor would they spend all their time outside. I am satisfied the noise from the children can be effectively managed to be acceptable.
7. I am further comforted that including a condition on the permit to require an acoustic report to be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority ensures the proposed screening would be effective. I also propose to include an amenity condition on the permit that would provide the basis for the responsible authority or the neighbours to require further actions if the screening is ineffective.

1. Applying the trip generation rate of 0.91 trips per child in clause 22.11-2, the centre would generate up to 120 vehicle trips in both the morning and evening peaks. As the traffic comprises both staff and parents, slightly more vehicles enter the site than leave in the morning, and slightly more vehicles depart the site than arrive in the evening.
2. Mr Fairlie and Council's traffic engineers agree that Tucker Road has the capacity to absorb the predicted traffic movements without undue congestion or disruption. Mr Fairlie advised that traffic flows on the road creates gaps, so people can enter the road safely. He says the sightlines are good and speeds are low to moderate, so there is a low risk of accidents. The advantage of this site over a corner site is that its access is to Tucker Road, hence vehicles are unlikely to use local streets. I adopt his evidence and I am satisfied that the use would not adversely affect traffic conditions around the site.
3. With regard to parking, the centre meets the number of spaces required by clause 52.05. The design and layout of the spaces, access aisle and ramp comply with clause 52.06-8. No planning permission is required with regard to parking.
4. I am satisfied that the use of a basement for parking would be acceptable and parents and staff would use it in preference to using on-street parking. A parking management plan should ensure that staff use the spaces adjacent to the walls, allowing parents to use the spaces adjacent to the aisle that are convenient for short stay parking.
5. I think that parking in the basement would be safer for the children than parking on the street. The basement would include a gated area near the lift, which would be considerably safer than loading and unloading children adjacent to a busy road. I am also persuaded that the number of vehicles entering and leaving the centre at any time would not be so many to cause congestion in the basement or on the ramp.

1. The neighbours say the building would comprise undue visual bulk that would be intrusive and adversely affect the amenity of their habitable rooms and secluded open space.
2. With regard to views from no.250 Tucker Road to the south, I note the upstairs bedroom windows are screened to 1.7 metres and hence views of the review site from these rooms are very limited.
3. Ground floor dining room, kitchen and other habitable rooms have windows that face the shared boundary. There would be a first floor wall approximately 9.5 metres in length opposite these windows. The wall would be set back 4.7 metres from the boundary.
4. I think a person within these rooms would see little of the proposed first floor. I think the short length of wall and the generous setback to the side boundary make the wall visually acceptable.
5. No.250 Tucker Road has a small area of secluded open space in its northeast corner, to the rear of the living room/kitchen. I accept the child care centre will be very visible from this space. However, its visual bulk would be mitigated by the 8.7 metres setback of the first floor opposite this open space area. The setbacks of the south side of the building will enable it to be visible, but it would be distant and recessed.
6. The area in front of no.250 Tucker Road is used for secluded open space, mainly an informal play area. The childe care centre would be set back approximately the same distance from Tucker Road as Mr Yin's dwelling, so people within the front play area would continue to enjoy open views across the front of the child care centre.
7. The more sensitive outdoor entertainment area of no.250 Tucker Road is located on the south side of the dwelling and so is completely screened from the child care centre. I do not consider there are undue visual bulk concerns from the front secluded open space.
8. Mr Evans and his brother own no.2/256 Tucker Road to the northeast of the site. They say the child care centre would comprise intrusive visual bulk to the occupant(s) of their dwelling.
9. The first floor would be set back between 1.3 metres and 2.6 metres from the common boundary. It would be set back 5.8 metres from the east boundary, a greater setback than Mr Evans' dwelling.
10. No.2/256 Tucker Road has a habitable room in the south wall facing the review site. It has two narrow vertical windows. I think the views through these windows would be very confined and I have no concern with this outlook.
11. A decked area is located between the rear of no.2/256 Tucker Road and its rear fence, approximately 8 metres from the common boundary with the review site. As the child care centre would have a larger set back than Mr Evans' dwelling, very little of the childe care centre would be visible from this decked area.
12. There is an area of private open space at the front of no.2/256 Tucker Road, and I accept that the centre will be highly visible from this space and the habitable rooms that face this space. I understand these rooms are bedrooms where views are less sensitive than in living areas. I also understand this open space area in front of the dwelling is primarily a front garden/entry area rather than secluded open space, hence views of a neighbouring building, albeit large, are acceptable.
13. The child care centre would be set back 5.8 metres and up to 9.7 metres at the first floor from the east (rear) boundary. I think these setbacks respond to the prevailing backyard character, which is varied and includes a dwelling within 3.3 metres of the boundary. I think the setbacks and the proposed landscaping would make the visual bulk viewed from the east acceptable.
14. I am satisfied that the proposed use and development would not adversely affect the amenity of adjoining or nearby dwellings.

1. Conditions were discussed at the hearing and any changes to the permit conditions contained in Appendix A of this order reflect those discussions plus further consideration by the Tribunal.

1. For the reasons explained above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is issued subject to conditions.

• Use the land in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone for a Section 2 use (child care centre) (Clause 32.09-1)
• Construct buildings and works for a section 2 use in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Clause 32.09-7)
• Display a business identification sign in a medium limitation area in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Clause 52.05-10)

1. Before the commencement of the development, amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to, and approved by the responsible authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must generally accord with the plans considered by VCAT (identified as TP06-TP10 Revision A dated 2/12/14 and prepared by Perkins Architects) but modified to show:

1. All first floor north, east and south facing habitable rooms/play areas screened with fixed obscure glazing (maximum 25% transparency), or otherwise to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 2. A schedule of colours and materials (including paint samples) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. An acoustic fencing report (prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer) detailing the acoustic qualities of the fencing proposed adjacent to the northern, eastern and southern property boundaries and surrounding all first floor play areas.

1. The first floor acoustic screening generally along the northern side where it protrudes forward of the 2.4 metre setback to the boundary modified in accordance with the evidence of Ms Peterson to the Tribunal to comprise vertical screening to 1.2 metres and then angled inwards at 45 degrees until it reaches 2.1 metres in height. 2. The acoustic screening above 1.2 metres to the west façade to comprise clear glazing without being angled back into the site. 3. Except for the stone wall shown on the substituted plans, the front timber picket fence to be no more than 1.5 metres in height and to comprise at least a 25 percent transparency. 4. A landscape plan in accordance with Condition 8, including rainwater tanks to irrigate the landscaping. 5. The westernmost staff parking space widened to 3.2 metres and the adjoining staff space moved 200mm eastward. 6. The inclusion of two Dynamic Parking Full signs at the entry of the ramp to the basement, one facing north and one facing south.

When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit.

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.
2. Except with the written consent of the responsible authority, the use allowed under this permit (excluding cleaning, maintenance and administration) must only operate within the following times:
   • Monday to Friday: 7:00am - 6:30pm.
3. No more than 132 children may be present on the site at any one time. This excludes children not enrolled at the centre.
4. No more than 33 staff members/employees may be present on the site at any one time.
5. Disabled persons' access to the building must be provided in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard/s to satisfy the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act.
6. Prior to the commencement of the use, a Parking Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The Parking Management Plan must include:

1. How the allocation of car spaces will be managed, including the provision of staff parking during the operating hours and the provision of parent car spaces during the morning and afternoon peak periods. 2. Which car spaces will be occupied by staff first.

1. Availability of parent parking during the middle of the day.

1. Arrangements for delivery vehicles. 2. Encouraging use of bicycles and shared transport arrangements. 3. Intended education of parents and staff about the Parking Management Plan such as through an orientation session or the like.
2. Before the commencement of buildings and works, a detailed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When the Landscape Plan is approved, it will become an endorsed plan forming part of this Permit. The Landscape Plan must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Botanical Traditions (Plans LC01, LC02, PP01-PP03, all dated 15 December 2014) but further amended to include:

1. The recommendation of Mr Patrick's evidence to the Tribunal regarding the size of planters, species along the south side of the driveway, an additional tree in the northwest front area and rainwater tanks for irrigation. 2. Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within 3 metres of the boundary.

1. A planting schedule of all proposed vegetation including botanical names; common names; pot sizes; sizes at maturity; quantities of each plant; and details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.

1. Landscaping and planting within all open space areas of the site. 2. Advanced canopy trees (minimum 3.0 metres tall when planted unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the responsible authority) in the following areas: * Tucker Road setback: x4 trees * Throughout the site: x4 trees

or eight trees in locations to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Trees are not to be sited over easements. All species selected must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. The landscaping as shown on the endorsed Landscape Plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority before the occupation of the development and/or the commencement of the use or at such later date as is approved by the responsible authority in writing.
2. The landscaping as shown the endorsed Landscape Plan must be maintained, and any dead, diseased or damaged plant replaced in accordance with the landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of any site works including demolition and excavation, the owner must submit a Construction Management Plan to the responsible authority for approval. No works including demolition and excavation are permitted to occur until the Plan has been approved in writing by the responsible authority. Once approved, the Construction Management Plan will be endorsed to form part of this permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The Plan must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and must provide details of the following:

1. delivery and unloading points and expected frequency 2. a liaison officer for contact by owners / residents and the responsible authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced

1. an outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, or anticipated disruptions to local services

1. any requirements outlined within this permit as required by the relevant referral authorities 2. hours for construction activity in accordance with any other condition of this permit 3. measures to control noise, dust, water and sediment laden runoff 4. measures to ensure that sub-contractors/tradespersons operating on the site are aware of the contents of the Construction Management Plan 5. any construction lighting to be baffled to minimise intrusion on adjoining lots.
2. The amenity of the area must, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, not be adversely affected by the use or development as a result of the:
   1. emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke or vapour.
3. All security alarms or similar devices installed on the land must be of a silent type approved by the Standards Association of Australia and be connected to a registered security service.
4. No amplified public address system or other amplified sound is to be used in the external areas of the childcare centre except in cases of emergency.
5. All outdoor lighting must be baffled and/or located to the satisfaction of the responsible authority to prevent light from the site causing detriment to the locality.
6. No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building/s without the prior written consent of the responsible authority.
7. Prior to the endorsement of the plans under Condition 1, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be submitted to the responsible authority for approval and must address the following:

1. Adequate provision for the storage of garbage, bottles, solid waste and recycling materials and demonstrate an adequate number of bins can be provided within the basement. 2. Details of the collection arrangements by a private contractor including the hours of collection.

1. Arrangements to maintain all bins and receptacles in a clean and tidy condition and free from offensive odour.

All to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. The use must operate in accordance with the approved Waste Management Plan except with the written consent of the responsible authority.
2. Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be:

1. constructed 2. properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans

1. drained 2. line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes 3. clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along the access lanes and driveways

Car spaces, access lanes and driveways shown on the endorsed plans must not be used for any other purpose.

1. Vehicular crossing(s) must be constructed to the road to suit the proposed driveway(s) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and any existing crossing or crossing opening must be removed and replaced with footpath, naturestrip and kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. The location of the signs (including the size, nature, panels, position and construction) shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the responsible authority. Note: This does not obviate the need for a permit where one is required.
3. The signs must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
4. This Permit will expire if:
   • the development does not start within two (2) years from the date of this Permit; or
   • the development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this Permit.

The responsible authority may extend the time referred to if a request is made in writing before this Permit expires or within six (6) months after the expiry date if the use/development has not commenced.

If the development has commenced, the responsible authority may extend the time referred to if a request is made in writing within twelve (12) months of the expiry date.

1. The layout of the site and size, design and location of buildings and works as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the responsible authority. This does not apply to the exemptions specified in clause 62 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. Note: This does not obviate the need for a permit where one is required.

[1] I have considered the submissions of all the parties that appeared, all the written and oral evidence, all the exhibits tendered by the parties, and all the statements of grounds filed. I do not recite or refer to all of the contents of those documents in these reasons.

[3] [2013] VCAT 855

[4] [2011] VCAT 1009

[5] I also note that the occupants of 1/256 Tucker Road lodged a statement of grounds that expressed concern regarding the impact of noise on an elderly occupant of that dwelling. I have considered their statement although they are not a party to this review.

[6] (includes Summary) (Red Dot) [2012] VCAT 686