1. The application for review is allowed. A permit is granted for use and development of a residential hotel and associated car parking, demolition of existing buildings, and removal of vegetation on the land at 3 Forest Avenue, Hepburn Springs. I direct the responsible authority to issue a permit on the following conditions:

1. Before the use and/or 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:

a) The location of car parking in accordance with condition 8.

(b) The location and details of all heating and air conditioning plant and equipment.

(c) The location of any storage areas for waste disposal bins including any binds to be collected by a commercial contractor.

2. The use of the premises, the layout of the site and the size, and internal layout of the buildings and works as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Once the development permitted by this permit has commenced, it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

4. The combined number of patrons for the restaurant and conference facility must not exceed 200 without the consent of the responsible authority.

5. Before the use starts, the area(s) set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

(b) properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans

(c) surfaced with an all-weather-seal coat, except as provided in condition 6

(e) line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes

(f) clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and driveways to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

(g) provided with lighting, including any areas of overflow parking.

Car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

6. Any overflow car park area provided on the leased crown land to the south of the subject land shall be designed and landscaped to the satisfaction of the responsible authority in conjunction with the subject site to integrate with the informal bush character of the Mineral Springs Reserve and shall be surfaced with pervious, natural material.

7. The front entrance driveway shall be made of pervious material such as paving or other materials to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and retaining walls to the front shall be constructed from local sandstone.

8. No fewer than 81 car spaces must be provided for the use and development as follows:

(a) a minimum of 61 car spaces provided on the land

· on the leased crown land to the south of the subject land,

· or elsewhere to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

In the event that the combined maximum number of patrons for the restaurant and conference facility is increased to more than 200 patrons, the number of car spaces provided must be increased by 0.3 spaces per patron.

9. Vehicular crossings must be constructed to the road to suit the proposed driveways to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

10. All disused or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the area reinstated to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

11. The loading and unloading of goods from vehicles must only be carried out on the land.

12. The owner, occupier and/or manager must make every endeavour to ensure that customer, patron or visitors' vehicles are parked within the site and not on the street.

13. A sign to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be provided directing drivers to the area set aside for car parking and must be located and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14. Before the development starts, a landscape plan for the subject land, the area of leased crown land to the south and the surrounding road reserves to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and 3 copies must be provided. The landscaping plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape concept plan prepared by John Patrick Pty Ltd but modified to reflect the conditions of this permit. The plan must show:

(a) a survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed.

(b) buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring land within 3 metres of the boundary.

(c) details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.

(d) 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.

(e) the use of fast growing species as screen planting around the area of leased crown land to the south of the subject site and the use of advanced plants within the subject site. Landscape planting particularly on the western and southern portions of the site must be of predominantly locally indigenous species. All species selected must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The landscape plan must also indicate that an appropriate irrigation system is to be provided to all landscaped areas.

15. Before the use/occupation of the development starts or by such later date as is approved by the responsible authority in writing, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

16. 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.

17. Before the development (including demolition starts), a tree protection fence must be erected around all trees shown on the landscape plan to be retained around the drip line to define a `Tree Protection Zone'. Signage should be attached to the fencing clearly stating that the area within is a Tree Protection Zone and no activity may take place inside the area. The fence must be constructed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The tree protection fence must remain in place until construction is completed. The ground surface of the Tree Protection Zone must be covered by 100mm deep layer of mulch before the development starts and be watered regularly to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. A qualified arborist must be engaged to oversee excavation cuts to assess and treat root damage. Soil levels should not be raised or lowered around any parts of the tree. Any landscape improvement works in the Tree Protection Zone must be performed manually.

18. No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone without the written consent of the responsible authority. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone.

19. Any pruning which is required to be done to the canopy of any tree to be retained is to be done by a qualified arborist to Australian Standard - Pruning of Amenity Trees AS4373-1996. Any pruning of the root system of any tree to be retained is to be done by hand by a qualified arborist.

20. No native vegetation shall be removed from the area of leased crown land to the south of the subject site without the written consent of the Department of Sustainability and Environment.

21. The amenity of the locality must not be adversely affected by the activity on the site, the appearance of any building, works or materials, emissions from the premises or in any other way to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

22. External lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

23. No plant, equipment, services or other features are permitted above the roof level of the building without the written consent of the responsible authority.

24. Noise levels emanating from the premises must not exceed those required to be met under State Environment Protection Policy (control of noise from commerce, industry and trade), No N-1 or State Environment Protection Policy (control of music noise from public premises), No N-2.

25. No external sound amplification equipment or loud speakers are to be used for the purpose of announcement, broadcast, playing of music or similar purpose.

26.(a)Before the development starts (including demolition) an environmental management plan for demolition and construction to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the Department of Sustainability and Environment must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The environmental management plan must address:

* The protection of vegetation and other assets to be retained.

* The prevention of the unintended movement of building waste and hazardous materials, sediment and other pollutants on or off the site, whether by air, water, or by other means.

* The measures to minimise the amount of waste delivered; the recycling or disposal of demolition and waste materials; and the return of waste materials to the supplier (where the supplier has a programme of reuse for recycling).

* The measures to minimise noise, dust, and other amenity impacts from mechanical equipment and demolition/construction activities.

* The procedures to ensure that no significant adverse environmental impacts occur as a result of the development.

* The need to ensure that all running ground or mineral water which is encounted during excavations for the development shall have its flow path maintained by the use of pipes or similar devices.

(b) The environmental management plan for demolition and construction should include the following:

* Any clearing or construction activity must be carried out in accordance with "Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control" EPA publication 275 and, where applicable, "Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites" EPA publication 480.

* Prior to commencement of any excavation works, a compacted earthen bund must be constructed upslope of such excavations to ensure that surface runoff does not enter the excavations or contaminate the mineral spring aquifers. Such bunds must be maintained for the duration of the excavation works until concrete footings and floors have been poured so as to seal any potential aquifer entry points.

(c) The environmental management plan for demolition and construction must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. It must provide a contact name and phone number for the site manager and 24 hour contact details.

27. Before the development starts, an integrated water management plan for the use, disposal and treatment of all potable water, wastewater and storm water to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the Department of Sustainability and Environment must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The integrated water management plan must address the opportunities for and the means of achieving:

* Reduced demand for potable water through use of water conservation features and alternative sources of supply such as wastewater and stormwater.

* Reduced volumes of wastewater through water conservation and reuse.

* Improvements in storm water quality runoff and a reduction in peak flows to the equivalent of flows expected for the site in a natural and undeveloped state through appropriate treatment and stormwater reuse.

28. Reticulated water and sewerage must be provided to the satisfaction of Central Highlands Water.

29. Before any road or drainage works commence, detailed construction 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 then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided.

30. A set of as constructed drawings for both the road and drainage infrastructure must be submitted to the responsible authority for its records within 6 weeks of practical completion of the works.

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

* The development is not started within 3 years of the date of this permit.

* The development is not completed and/or the use is not commenced within 5 years of the date of this permit.

The responsible authority may extend the period referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within the 3 months afterwards.

Mr Gary Testro, Solicitor. He called the following witnesses:

* David Bick, Architectural Historian and Conservation Architect

* Charmaine Chalmers Dunstan, Traffic Engineer, Traffix Group

* Evan Patterson, Town Planner, Terrain Consulting Group Pty Ltd

Mr Con Tsourounakis, Senior Town Planner. He called the following witness:

* Simon John Beal, Traffic Engineer, Andrew O'Brian & Associates Pty Ltd

* Application P1016 is made pursuant to section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in respect of the failure by the responsible authority to grant a permit for a 40 room, luxury 5 star residential hotel at 3 Forest Avenue, Hepburn Springs, in close proximity to the Historic Mineral Springs Bath House. The hotel will replace an existing weatherboard bed and breakfast establishment dating from the 1940's.

* The permit application was opposed by the responsible authority on the grounds that it fails to provide the required number of car spaces on the property to meet expected demands, even though the proposed development satisfies a number of Council's strategic objectives in the Municipal Strategic Statement and other relevant planning provisions.

* I have considered all the submissions and evidence presented at the hearing and I have inspected the site and surrounding area.

* One objector filed a statement of grounds with the Tribunal, namely Daylesford and District Action Group Inc. On 16 July 2004, the Tribunal received a letter from this objector stating that the objection of the Daylesford and District Action Group Inc is withdrawn. No indication was given that a copy of this letter was sent to the other parties, and neither the applicant nor the responsible authority were aware of the letter at the commencement of the hearing.

* Subsequent to the hearing on 23 July 2004, the solicitor for the applicant advised the applicant as follows:

This morning in the mail, I received from that Objector a copy of its letter to the Tribunal indicating that the Objection to the proposed development is withdrawn. Although that letter to the Tribunal is dated 15 July, it was only received by me this morning. Indeed, the envelope in which it arrived is postmarked 6pm 22 July. That appears to indicate that the letter was not posted to me by the Objector until the day after the hearing of the appeal began.

That late notification by the Objector has involved the applicant for review/applicant for permit and its representatives in preparation-related activities and the attendant expense of them which would have been avoided, at least in part, if the notification had been provided earlier.

* Failure to provide copies of all correspondence to the Tribunal to other parties contravenes the requirement of clause 1.3 of Practice Note Planning and Environment List No 1 - General Procedures that a party who makes a written communication to the Tribunal "must at the same time" serve a copy of that on all other parties. This requirement is included in the information sheet required to be served on all objectors at the time they are served with a copy of the application for review.

* The obligation under clause 1.3 of Practice Note No 1 - General Procedures relating to notification of communication to all parties was specifically drawn to the attention of the objector by letter from the Senior Registrar dated 16 July 2004 which states:

There is no indication in your letter that you have served a copy of your letter on the other parties. If you have not already done so would you please attend to this. You should also provide the Tribunal in writing confirmation that you have done so and the date(s) on which your letter was sent to each of the other parties.

The normal practice of the Tribunal is that it will not act on your letter until it receives the information indicated above.

* The consequences of a party failing to send copies of all communication to other parties is illustrated by the circumstances of this case where the applicant addressed by way of submission and evidence a range of matters arising from the statement of grounds lodged by the objector but which were not contended by the responsible authority. This put the applicant to unnecessary expense in the conduct of its case at the hearing. Although no application for costs was made, this is conduct that could give rise to an award of costs having regard to section 109 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. It is something that the objector, the Daylesford and District Action Group Inc, should consider in the future.

* The subject site is located at the intersection of Forest Avenue and Mineral Springs Crescent, Hepburn Springs. Its western boundary abuts the main entrance road to the Hepburn Springs Spa Complex. The site is a small island of privately owned land at the edge of a large sea of crown land forming the Mineral Springs Reserve. The Spa Complex is currently under renovation, funded by the State Government. It will include construction of a large new bath house, which will be built close to the entrance of the Mineral Springs Reserve and in close proximity to the subject site. The Spa Complex does not contain any accommodation nor will it when the renovations are completed.

* The subject site is currently used for accommodation purposes and is occupied by the existing Four Seasons Hotel which has been providing budget hotel accommodation since the 1940's. This accommodation is made up of a attached cottage located towards the south boundary with a number of single story weatherboard clad accommodation rooms set further to the north towards the centre of the property. Car parking for the current establishment is located informally on an adjoining property to the south which is leased Crown Land. The lease is current to 2008.

* Properties surrounding the subject site are used for a variety of purposes. A Council depot occupies land adjoining the subject site immediately to the south, and land further to the south east is currently vacant but was formerly used as a caravan park. Mineral Springs Crescent to the west serves as a public car park to the Mineral Springs Reserve and bath house. There is a combination of low density residential and bed and breakfast accommodation located to the east and further north of the site.

* The proposal involves demolition of the existing Four Seasons Hotel and construction of a 5 star hotel complex with 40 accommodation rooms plus managers unit, a restaurant and conference/function room. Associated facilities include a gymnasium, tourist retail shop and art gallery.

* The hotel complex is oval in shape and will extend over 5 levels, including 2 basement level car parks. The design takes advantage of the steep slope of the land from east to west so that from the entrance off Forest Street to the east the building will be only 2 stories high. The design is contemporary in style and the complex will be finished in a combination of "earthy" toned materials designed to reflect the bush character of the Mineral Springs Reserve and surrounding area. Extensive new landscaping of the site, adjacent road reserves and the adjoining leased crown land is proposed so that the complex will sit below the predominant tree canopy and be surrounded by vegetation. A total of 61 car parking spaces will be provided on site.

* The subject site and Mineral Springs Crescent immediately to the west is located within a Residential 1 Zone. The Mineral Springs Reserve to the south and further west is within a Public Park and Recreation Zone. Forest Avenue to the north and east of the site is in a Road Zone Category 2. Land on the opposite site of Forest Avenue is in a Low Density Residential Zone.

* The site is included in a Heritage Overlay and two Environmental Significant Overlays being Schedule 1 (Proclaimed Catchment Protection) and Schedule 2 (Mineral Springs and Ground Water Protection).

* The following components of the proposal require a planning permit under the provisions of the Hepburn Planning Scheme:

* Demolition of existing buildings (Heritage Overlay Clause 43.01-1);

* Use of land as residential hotel (Residential 1 Zone Clause 35.03-1);

* Construction of buildings and works (Residential 1 Zone Clause 35.03-4, Environmental Significance Overlay Schedules 1 and 2 (Clause 42.01-2), Heritage Overlay (Clause 43.01-1);

* Removal of vegetation (Environmental Significance Overlay Schedules 1 and 2 Clause 42.01-2, Heritage Overlay (Clause 42.02-2);

17 The key policy influences in respect of this proposal are those relating to tourism, heritage and environment.

18 The Municipal Strategic Statement acknowledges the importance of tourism to Hepburn and the role of the Mineral Springs in this. The significance of the Mineral Springs is acknowledged in the Municipal Strategic Statement as well as the importance of ground water management to avoid their contamination. This important aspect of the environment is reflected in the local planning policy in Clause 22.02 Mineral Springs Protection Policy and the Environmental Significance Overlay 2 - Mineral Springs and Ground Water Protection, which apply to the subject land.

19 The key issue in this case from the Council's perspective is the quantum of car parking, where it should be provided, and how. Car parking is the main ground on which the responsible authority has refused the permit application.

20 The Council acknowledges the contribution to economic development that will be made by the hotel both during construction and operation. It is acknowledged that a hotel and conference centre of the quality proposed would attract visitors from Melbourne, interstate and possibly overseas. Its proximity to the refurbished Mineral Springs Spa Complex will provide a complete package for both the tourist and business markets. In this respect, it will support tourism with the municipality. Whilst the Council considered that the proposed use was in an appropriate location given the proximity to the Mineral Springs and bath house complex, it considered the proposed site response and building design to be an overdevelopment of the site. In particular, the scale and style of the proposed building is seen as out of character with the existing low scale built form of Hepburn Springs especially given its prominent location, elevated above Mineral Springs Crescent.

21 It was common ground, and I agree, that the proposed hotel strongly supports the economic development and tourism objectives of both the State Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework of the Hepburn Planning Scheme. Nor is there any objection on heritage grounds to the demolition of the existing buildings.

22 I have reached the conclusion that the hotel will not be an overdevelopment of the site for the following reasons. The building has been sensitively designed to take advantage of the sloping nature of the site. The curved nature of its oval shape and the proposed palette of colours and materials respond sensitively to the bush setting. The contemporary style of the building will complement the equally contemporary style of the proposed new bath house complex, which will be located in close proximity when it is built.

23 I do not consider that the low scale character of other buildings north of Forest Road is an appropriate bench mark by which to assess this particular development. It will be a luxury resort hotel in the tradition of up-market hotels that were frequently built in the past at popular resorts like Hepburn Springs. Such hotels were traditionally large, imposing buildings, which contrasted with the smaller scale budget accommodation provided by cottages, bed and breakfast and guest house establishments. It is appropriate that a new hotel of this type be located at the entrance to the Mineral Springs Reserve. However, although it will be imposing, I do not consider the development will be dominating. Much of the existing vegetation on the site will be removed but a comprehensive landscape plan for the site and the surrounding areas of road reserve and crown land will result in the re-establishment of a dense landscape setting which will enhance the building and the general area.

24 The landscape design prepared by John Patrick will result in a significant gain in vegetation on the site and adjacent to it. It will see the replacement of a number of trees currently in poor condition, establish a strong sense of place and integrate the site with the broader landscape setting. In my view, the landscape plan will lead to a upgraded setting that makes a greater contribution to its broader environment then currently exists. In overall terms, the height of the building has been designed so that it sits below the canopy line of surrounding trees and does not dominate the skyline.

25 In summary, the style of the building will complement the site and the new landscaping will ensure that it integrates well with the broader landscape setting. I do not consider it will be an overdevelopment of the site nor do I consider its character will be inappropriate in this location.

26 Evidence about traffic and car parking was given on behalf of the responsible authority by Mr Simon Beal and on behalf of the applicant by Ms Charmaine Dunstan. It was common ground that Forest Avenue currently carries minimum traffic and hence could easily absorb the additional traffic generated by the proposed development even under function/conference arrival and departure conditions. Provided that parking does not occur on Forest Avenue, the proposed development would have no significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the surrounding road network.

27 The main area of difference between the two witnesses concerned the likely peak parking demand and where overflow parking should be accommodated. Mr Beal estimated a peak parking demand of between 102 - 116 spaces. Ms Dunstan estimated a peak parking demand of not more than 81 spaces.

28 Sixty one car spaces are proposed to be provided on site. A further 15 spaces could be provided on the area of leased crown land adjacent to the site giving a total of 76 spaces.

29 Ms Dunstan's evidence was that a further 20 spaces could be provided on site by realigning the car spaces to provide 90 degree parking in addition to the inclusion of a limited number of car stackers. This would cater for the peak parking demand of 81 spaces estimated by her. However, it was submitted that a more appropriate arrangement, which would make a better use of resources and allow the sharing of parking resources, would be to provide additional car parking on the area of leased crown land or the former caravan park site within the Mineral Springs Reserve slightly to the south east of the site.

30 Mr Beal's evidence was that a parking supply of 61 spaces, even in conjunction with the 15 spaces on the leased crown land, was likely to be inadequate to cater for the anticipated peak parking demands and that there would be an overflow in the order of 26 to 40 vehicles. With the potential loss of parking on the crown land in 2008 (when the lease expires) the shortage will become more acute with the overflow increasing to an estimated 41 to 55 vehicles. In his view, the on-site parking supply would need to be increased to 90 - 100 spaces.

31 The Department of Sustainability and Environment is a referral authority pursuant to the Environmental Significance Overlay. The Department initially objected to the granting of a permit but following lengthy negotiations with the applicant, the Department removed its objection, subject to several conditions being placed on the permit to address its concerns. With respect to car parking, the Department's position is as follows:

The Department is in receipt of a facsimile from TraffixGroup to Avi Milder Architects, dated 20 January 2004 (copy attached). This facsimile indicates that the applicant and Council have agreed to the following:

· The provision of 103 car parking spaces resulting in 42 spaces being required offsite.

· The applicant would pay for the construction of a sealed asphalt carpark, providing for 42 cars.

· The offsite car park would be located within the disused caravan park site within the adjoining reserve.

· The redevelopment of the spa complex is likely to generate a need for additional car parking.

· A design for the car park is yet to be undertaken and the total number of parking spaces is yet to be determined by Council, depending on the needs of the refurbished spa complex.

The Department would be satisfied with the above, subject to appropriate permit conditions to ensure that the carpark is developed as soon as practicable should the hotel development proceed.

As the delegated land manager for the old camping reserve, the appropriate mechanism to be used by Council for any development of a carpark on this land for use by another party would be under section 17E of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act (copy attached). I also draw your attention to section 17E(2)(b), which requires the Minister to be satisfied that there is a community need for the carpark.

32 Accordingly, the Department requested that among the conditions to be attached to a permit, the following be included:

1. A minimum of 103 sealed carparking spaces must be provided. The applicant must enter into satisfactory arrangements with the responsible authority, to ensure that any overflow of the site carparking spaces will be provided within the disused caravan park site within the adjoining Mineral Springs Reserve, within a satisfactory time frame, at full cost to the applicant.

33 However, the Council does not support use of the former caravan park for car parking. It has refused to institute any action pursuant to section 17E of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act as advocated in the correspondence from the Department of Sustainability and Environment and which would be necessary to give effect to the condition proposed by the Department.

34 The Council has a philosophic view that public land should not be used to supply any of the parking requirements for a private enterprise. On this basis, it is opposed to any use of the caravan park site for overflow parking to be used by the hotel.

35 As a result of this attitude, and as it would not be possible to provide 90 - 100 car spaces on site even with the use of stackers, the Council's view is that a permit should be refused.

36 In assessing the likely peak parking demand, the main difference between Mr Beal and Ms Dunstan is the demand for spaces likely to be generated by the conference/function rooms. These will accommodate a maximum of 150 people. Ms Dunstan has allowed 0.3 spaces per patron (45 spaces) but discounted this by 50% on the basis that 50% of attendees are likely to be already staying in the hotel. She has therefore calculated 23 spaces. By contrast, Mr Beal's view was that when the conference facility is operating at capacity (ie on week days with 150 conference delegates) it is estimated that 55 - 75 spaces would be required during the day to accommodate the 110 delegates who cannot be accommodated in the proposed hotel. On the evening of conference dinners this demand would also be manifested in the evening until the delegates staying off site returned to their accommodation.

37 This rate for the conference/function rooms was criticised by the applicant on the basis that it was based on a parking rate per square metre of floor space of 0.3 spaces rather than 0.3 spaces per seat or patron. According to Ms Dunstan, the consequence of adopting the responsible authority's approach would contemplate a potential density of 260 people using the conference centre. It was submitted that this rate of parking demand is similar in intensity to that applied for uses such as night clubs and is not appropriate to apply to a conference centre or where the `place of assembly' use will contain permit conditions limiting the number of patrons that are allowed on site at any one time.

38 With respect to the evidence regarding peak parking demand, I prefer the evidence of Ms Dunstan on behalf of the applicant. The type of hotel, its location and the facilities to be provided mean that it is likely to have a very integrated operation. On occasions when the conference/function rooms are operating to capacity I consider it is likely that a substantial proportion of attendees will also be resident in the hotel. I therefore consider it is appropriate to reduce the number of car spaces attributable to the conference/function rooms by 50% to take account of this. I also consider it is more appropriate to calculate the number of spaces by reference to seats rather than floor area. In a situation where the number of seats or patrons can be specified as a permit condition I consider this is a more appropriate approach to use than the floor area approach.

39 For these reasons I find that 81 car spaces will be required. Sixty one car spaces are currently shown in the plans accompanying the permit application, therefore the next issue to consider is where the additional 20 car spaces should be provided to cater for overflow car parking. According to the applicant this could be accommodated by:

* Increasing the supply of on site parking to 81 spaces, which would require the realignment of car spaces and the use of a limited number of car stackers;

* Using the leased area of crown land adjacent to the subject site; or

40 The use of car stackers is an expensive option. Car stackers cost in the order of $10,000 per space created. Operationally they will require some degree of valet parking.

41 The responsible authority opposes the use of the adjoining leased crown land because there is no guarantee that it will continue to be available after the lease expires in 2008. It also opposes the use of the former caravan park site and is not agreeable to facilitating its use for this purpose. This is despite the Department of Sustainability and Environment negotiating with the applicant to provide car parking in this location and supporting the use of this land for this purpose.

42 In light of the Council's current attitude towards the use of the caravan park site for parking, I do not consider this is a feasible option at this time. In the medium to long term though, I consider that the use of the caravan site for parking to serve the needs of the whole of the Mineral Springs Reserve and the bath house complex is a matter that requires further investigation. I am not convinced that the traffic and parking study prepared by Andrew O'Brien and Associates Pty Ltd for the bath house redevelopment (November 2003), which was tabled by the responsible authority, leads conclusively to the conclusion that no additional car parking will be required for the redevelopment of the bath house complex. The report does not appear to address parking demand associated with the broader use of the Mineral Springs Reserve and whether the parking overall is adequate. The report also states (page 21) that some additional parking associated with the bath house will likely be required.

43 With respect to the philosophic attitude expressed by the responsible authority that public land should not be used to satisfy the private parking needs of enterprises, I note that this is at odds with the State Planning Policy relating to the efficient provision of car parking and the consolidation of car parking facilities set out in clause 18.02-2 of the Hepburn Planning Scheme and clause 52.06. It is well established, and the VPP Practice Note on using the parking provisions (July 2002) makes it quite clear, that it is not necessary for parking to always be provided on-site, and that off-site parking can include public on street, and public or private off street parking provision. The consolidation of parking provision for multiple uses avoids the duplication of facilities and consequent waste of resources, which is relevant when considering the sustainability of proposals. I therefore do not consider that the philosophic view espoused by the responsible authority can be supported. I consider that the Mineral Springs area at Hepburn Springs is possibly suitable for preparation of a parking precinct plan, which would include consideration of the former caravan park site to cater for the additional parking needs for the precinct as a whole. Whilst, this is a matter for the future, on the basis of what was put to me at the hearing and considering the Andrew O'Brien and Associates report, I am not convinced that the car parking for the Mineral Springs Reserve and redeveloped bath house is yet fully resolved. Further work will be necessary to ensure that an overall shortage of car parking does not restrict access to any of the facilities or attractions of this significant tourist destination or cause a loss of amenity to surrounding areas. Any further work should take account of parking demand generated by the precinct as a whole and it may be appropriate to wait until the bath house complex and the Four Seasons Hotel have been completed before carrying out further empirical studies about parking demand associated with these and other attractions within the precinct.

44 However, all this is not directly relevant to the supply of parking for the new Four Seasons Hotel. I consider that the use of the former caravan park site for parking or other purposes is a matter that needs to be resolved between the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Council. Whilst it is perhaps unfortunate that the current permit opportunity could not have been utilised to provide, at no cost to the public purse, additional public car parking for the Mineral Springs Reserve and Spa Complex as a whole, other options exists for the applicant.

45 At this stage, I consider that the applicant should be permitted to provide additional, overflow parking on the area of leased crown land adjacent to the subject site. If this area is better laid out and some paving (although not hard surface) is provided, it could accommodate 15 - 20 car spaces. This should not be at the expense of losing any additional trees other than those identified in the arborist's report by Nicholas Wong which accompanied the permit application. Landscaping of this area should be included within the landscape plan prepared for the site as a whole. Whilst I recognise that there is no guarantee of the lease continuing beyond 2008, there is no evidence before me either that this is unlikely to occur. I consider that car parking for 81 spaces should be provided on the subject land and on the area of leased crown land to the south or elsewhere to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. If, for some reason, the lease of the crown land is not renewed after 2008, the applicant may need to consider the installation of car stackers if the additional number of car spaces cannot be provided off site elsewhere. It may be possible that by this time there is a parking precinct plan which may include arrangements for a contribution towards the provision of car parking elsewhere in the Mineral Springs Reserve. These are matters that will need to be resolved at this stage. At this point in time though, there is the ability to provide the requisite number of car spaces on the subject land and adjacent land controlled by the applicant.

46 The initial plans submitted with the permit application contemplated water recycling for garden purposes. This was opposed by the Department of Sustainability and Environment because of potential pollution risks. There is a very strong policy framework in place to prevent any risk of ground water contamination. This has resulted in a number of conditions being required by referral authorities and the Council all aimed at the protection of water resources and managing the disposal of storm water runoff. In particular, these conditions have stipulated that all wastewater must be discharged to the reticulated sewerage system and no onsite disposal of grey water will be permitted. However, overall they are a very disjointed set of conditions with some potentially conflicting aspects.

47 The applicant accepts that the use of treated grey water for garden watering is not acceptable but considers that it might be possible for there to be some water reuse on site, for example toilet flushing.

48 I consider that in a development of this size and in this type of sensitive location an integrated water management plan should be prepared. An integrated water management plan should identify and address opportunities for:

* A reduction in demand for potable water through use of water conservation features and alternative sources of supply such as wastewater and stormwater.

* A reduction in the volume of wastewater through water conservation and reuse.

* An improvement in storm water quality runoff and reduction in peak flows through appropriate treatment and stormwater reuse.

An integrated approach to water management is in line with the principles of the government's water strategy.

49 Likewise, in this type of sensitive location, it is appropriate that an environmental management plan should be prepared for demolition and construction of the development. Whilst the draft permit conditions contain a number of conditions directed to demolition and construction, I consider it would be preferable for the applicant to integrate all its obligations into a comprehensive environmental management plan that addresses the following matters:

* The protection of vegetation and other features to be retained.

* The prevention of the unintended movement of building waste and hazardous materials, sediment and other pollutants on or off the site, whether by air, water, or other means.

* The measures to minimise the amount of waste delivered, the recycling of demolition and waste material; and the return of waste materials to the supplier (where the supplier has a programme of reuse or recycling).

* The measures to minimise noise, dust and other amenity impacts from mechanical equipment and demolition/construction activities.

* The measures to maintain all running ground or mineral water that is encountered during excavations for the development.

50 The draft conditions proposed by the responsible authority include a requirement for a general environmental management plan and auditing. However, it is unclear what this environmental management plan and auditing programme is intended to achieve. Whilst I consider an environmental Management plan is appropriate for the demolition and construction phase of the development, I am not persuaded that one is required for the ongoing operation of the hotel. There may be aspects of the integrated water management plan that require ongoing auditing, for example to maintain compliance with SEPPs or other requirements for stormwater discharge. However, that should be addressed as part of the integrated water management plan. There is no reason to place an onus on the applicant to prepare an environmental management plan and require ongoing auditing when the objectives of this are unclear.

51 At the conclusion of the hearing, the draft conditions submitted by the responsible authority, including referral authority conditions, were discussed on a without prejudice basis. Some of the conditions are referred to above and have been redrafted accordingly. Some of the conditions, for example those which referred to obligations under other acts, are inappropriate. There was considerable repetition among conditions and this has been eliminated. Where appropriate, the standard conditions from the Department of Sustainability and Environment/MAV Publication "Writing Planning Permits" (June 2003) have been used.

52 Finally, it is disappointing to note the poor standard of permit condition drafting from referral authorities and particularly from the Department of Sustainability and Environment. The Department above all others should be setting a benchmark in the quality of permit condition drafting and leadership in the development of conditions which implement in a practical way the government's water and other environmental strategies.

53 My overall conclusion is that a permit should be granted for the proposal on the conditions set out in the order.