To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.

To encourage development that is responsive to the neighbourhood character of the area.

To encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport.

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

1. I find that the proposal is generally responsive to the design objectives and decision guidelines applicable under the DDO12, and the purpose of the GRZ. I say 'generally', because I am not persuaded that all of the colours and materials chosen are responsive to the DDO12, which seeks to "...reduce contrast with the landscape." I shall return to this later.
2. However, the proposed building is low in scale being single storey, with a maximum height of 6.97, and the majority of the building less than this. This results in the built form being generally below the predominant tree canopy of the surrounding area, which comprises larger eucalypts, along with mid storey vegetation.
3. The new facility will occupy a significant proportion of the subject site, when taking into account the new building as well as the dedicated on-site car parking area at the southern end of the site.
4. Mallacoota has a strong landscape character, dominated by native vegetation, much of which is mid-level eucalypts. Built form is consistently recessive to the landscape, and generally modest in appearance.
5. The proposal will be a significant change on the subject site and whilst there is not a high presence of vegetation on the site, neither is there a strong presence created by the existing building.
6. The proposed building will be constructed relatively close to the Bucknall Street frontage, and extend some distance along this frontage, with the ambulance vehicle garage constructed to the Bucknall Street frontage. The wide nature strip will assist to soften this appearance. However, parts of the building will be finished in colours that are not typical of either the natural landscape, or other buildings in the surrounding area.
7. This is not fatal to the application, however, and can be easily addressed by requiring a different colour scheme, where more subdued tones are utilised. This is particularly pertinent to the north, south and east elevations, where they face the respective streets, and will be highly visible from the public realm. Furthermore, whilst some vegetation is proposed to be retained and a new landscape proposal will be implemented, the new landscaping will be rather modest, with only lower storey plantings. This means that the form and appearance of the building is paramount in ensuring it fits with the existing context.
8. The DDO12 seeks that buildings blend with the natural landscape and allow the natural landscape to be the dominant feature.
9. The use of Austral Bricks 'La Paloma Miro' which is a very light, almost white, coloured brick, and the Colorbond 'Whitehaven' roof sheeting, which is proposed as a wall cladding, are quite stark tones whether compared with the surrounding landscape. They should be changed to more muted tones that blend with the natural landscape, particularly given the extent of built form proposed throughout the site. I will not specify colours but will require a permit condition for an amended colour and materials schedule. The exact colour/material is something the respondent and the council can agree upon though the amended plans condition process.

1. This proposal does not include a use component under the planning scheme, and therefore many of the amenity issues raised by the applicant are not open for review, because the site enjoys existing use rights. However, there are aspects of the development that may give rise to amenity impacts, because of the nature of the development and the way it is proposed to be arranged on the site.
2. For example, the location of the ambulance bay/garage, and the location of the car park further along Bucknall Street are matters that are associated with the development that may cause amenity impact issues, such as noise and headlight glare. At the outset, however, I am not persuaded that such impacts will be unacceptable.
3. With respect to ambulance vehicle noise, there would already be a level of noise occurring with the existing use, particularly the comings and goings of ambulance vehicles. However, the proposed new ambulance garage is generally in the same location as the existing location where ambulances are parked and staged. The respondent also said there will not be in increase in the number of ambulance vehicles associated with the redevelopment, and so I am not persuaded that the location of the new garage gives rise to any unacceptable additional noise concerns because of this.

1. In addition, the ambulances are currently parked under open carports accessed only from Bucknall Street, whereas they will now be parked in an enclosed garage and entry will be via Betka Road, and egress via the garage. This will likely reduce the level of activity on Bucknall Street and also enable any activity associated with the ambulance vehicles to be undertaken within the enclose garage, potentially reducing any associated noise and amenity impacts. This includes the opening and closing of ambulance vehicle doors, staff talking, and the manoeuvring of vehicles, such as reversing given there is one way access proposed from Betka Road.
2. The existing building does not have a patient holding area and so moving a patient and similar activities are currently undertaken outside of the building. The proposal provides a dedicated patient holding area next to the garage ensuring that movement of patients and the like from and to the ambulance vehicles is undertaken internal to the building. This will reduce, if not eliminate, noise generated from this activity which currently occurs outside along the Bucknall Street frontage.
3. The location for post-patient cleaning of the inside of ambulance vehicles is currently outside of the existing building. The proposal internalises this area within the garage therefore removing it from the street and reducing any impact cleaning of the vehicles may have on the surrounding area.
4. In relation to the proposed new car park further south along Bucknall Street, this car park is to have a total of 15 spaces, which are not presently accommodated on the site, and in a location which is currently vacant[4]. At present, such parking occurs along the street frontages in informal manner.
5. It is likely that noise and headlight glare will be a new occurrence as a result of the new car parking, part of which provides an access aisle and 6 spaces on either side, and which enables forward entry and exit movements. The dwelling opposite may incur some of these additional impacts as a result.
6. The respondent set out the activities that are associated with the ambulance station that give an indication as to how this car park will be used. This includes use by attending paramedics and use by community paramedic volunteers for attendance at incidents and training and the like.
7. The proposed car parking spaces allocated for deliveries are situated along the Betka Road frontage, away from Bucknall Street, and within immediate proximity to a dedicated delivery space within the proposed building. This will reduce the need for a lengthy path of travel from the delivery vehicle and the building and concentrate activities to the Betka Road frontage and away from Bucknall Street.
8. Noise from the proposed relocated generator was also raised as a concern. There is an existing generator between the existing building and the Betka Road frontage. The newly relocated generator will be located in roughly the same location but slightly closer to the Bucknall Street frontage. It will still be more than 5 metres from this frontage.
9. The applicant said that the generator is to be used for backup purposes only, when reticulated power has been cut and will not be used for general purposes on a regular basis.
10. Noise issues associated with the proposed generator are dealt with through other legislation such as EPA Protocol 1826, which addresses noise from commerce and trade, and includes an emergency services facility (but with exemptions for some aspects, such as the use of sirens).
11. General noise emanating from the facility beyond what I have already addressed is not a matter that I find I am able to deal with because existing use rights have been established for the site, as set out previously in these reasons. Notwithstanding, there would already be a level of noise associated with the existing facility and the new facility will not accommodate any additional ambulance vehicles, nor was there any suggestion that Mallacoota is likely to experience any significant growth such that the new facility would likely experience any significant increase in call-outs and therefore associated activity that might increase amenity impacts. There may be some increase but nothing that points to any unacceptability in my view. Ambulance Stations are commonly found in residential settings, and this has a 'community' element to it with ambulance volunteers, which seems not dissimilar from CFA stations which are also commonly located in residential areas and have volunteer elements.
12. In many respects, I find that the proposed new facility will formalise some currently informal arrangements, such as parking, as well as likely reduce amenity impacts given the nature of the development which now proposes to internally accommodate some of the amenity impact generating activities, such as vehicle cleaning and patient transfer.

1. The proposal includes vegetation removal. The vegetation proposed to be removed is set about above and repeated here:
   1. Removal of Tree Group 2 (TG2) which is a series of Sweet Pittosporum located in the road reserve along Bucknall Street and which is an environmental weed.
   2. Removal of tree 4 (T4), an unidentifiable eucalyptus species, measuring 12m x 8m.
   3. Removal of Tree group 5 (TG5), a series of Princess Trees.
   4. Removal of trees 7, 8 and 9 (T7, T8, T9) Respectively two Weeping Bottlebrushes and another Callistemon variety, all of which are native but not indigenous.
2. Tree 1 (T1), a street tree, Tree 3 (T3) a Princess Tree near the south-eastern end of the site, will have their Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) incurred upon, but not adversely affected or required to be removed.

1. The VPO8 applies to the site and sets out the following in the 'Statement of nature and significance of vegetation to be protected':

The Mallacoota area is located on the shores of Mallacoota Inlet in far East Gippsland. It contains substantial areas of remnant native vegetation and other significant vegetation, including within built up areas.

Vegetation contributes significantly towards aesthetic values of the area and provides for a unique character in a lakeshore setting, resulting in a highly attractive area to both local residents and visitors.

Remnant native vegetation throughout the area, including important examples of Rough-barked Angophora (Angophora floribunda), Red Bloodwood (E. gummifera) and the Mallacoota Gum (or Maiden's Gum, E. globulus ssp Maidenii), is of high conservation value and provides important fauna habitat. The township area of Mallacoota encompasses the Shady Gully reserve, which provides habitat for a number of vulnerable, rare or threatened species, and the remnant warm temperate rainforest of Develins Gulch. Some Ecological Vegetation Classes represented in the Mallacoota township area, such as Swamp Scrub, are rare or threatened on a state and national basis.

1. From the above, it can be seen that there is a heavy emphasis on indigenous vegetation. Of the vegetation to be removed, none are positively identified as indigenous. The eucalyptus species was unable to be further specified, and others are planted natives.
2. The arborists report sets out the following summary assessment:

1. Although T1 has a greater than 10% encroachment, because it is a street tree, it has a significant amount of contiguous soil that will likely remain undisturbed as it is in the road reserve.
2. TG2 comprises a series of environmental weeds and so I have no concerns with their removal.
3. T3 will have its TPZ impacted upon by 17%, the arborist report notes the following:
   • The large surface roots exposed north of the tree will be protected within the lawn area and the incursion is several metres away.
   • A large open contiguous area to the south and west allow for ample root growth for any lost roots which is the grassed areas in the caravan park.
   • The grade has minor falls south and west where water will pool, suggesting roots will be drawn to these areas, away from the development.
   • The removal of T4 will reduce competition below ground for water and nutrients, improving conditions for T3 remaining.
4. On the basis of this assessment, I am satisfied that this tree is unlikely to be adversely affected if a tree management plan can be implemented during construction.
5. T4 is a 12-metre-high eucalyptus species and is perhaps the most significant tree in terms of contribution to landscape character, on the site to be removed. The arborists report notes its importance as 'medium', with Fair health and Fair-Poor structure. The arborist report also states that it has "Codominant stems from GL with each stem further bifurcating at 1m above GL and again at 2m above GL".

1. TG5 is a series of exotic species, which I have no concerns with the removal of, given the VPO8 is not concerned with exotic species.
2. T6, T7, and T8 are planted native but not indigenous bottlebrushes, which again, I have no concern with the removal of.
3. That leaves my assessment to T4. Whilst it would be preferable if this tree were retained, its removal is one element of this proposal that falls on the side of negative elements that has to be weighed against other positive aspects of this proposal which I have already set out in other findings above.
4. Whilst a landscaping plan is proposed, it does not offer much in terms of replacement planting of larger tree species. The tallest species proposed is stated as being capable of growing to two metres which is unremarkable in this context.
5. Therefore, I am satisfied that on balance with other positive aspects of this proposed, the removal of T4 is acceptable.

1. The applicant raised various concerns with the proposal from a traffic and car parking perspective. These issues included:
   1. Increase in traffic along Bucknall Street and Betka Road.
   2. Inadequate width of Bucknall Street to cope with two-way traffic.
   3. Issues concerning delivery vehicles reversing into Betka Road.
   4. Betka Road being in a school time restricted speed limit zone.
2. An emergency services facility is not a use listed in Table 1 of clause 52.06, and therefore it does not have a specified rate of parking that is to be provided on the site.
3. Of note in this case is that there is no increase in the number of ambulance vehicles proposed to be station at the site. Whilst there are increased provisions for staff, such as reliever quarters, there is no evidence or material before me to indicate that the use of this site will intensify.
4. On this basis, it is difficult for me to accept that there will therefore be an increase in traffic or a net increase in detriment. There will be, in fact, improvements to the existing circumstances such as:
   1. Moving parked vehicles associated with the site from Bucknall Street to a dedicated off-street car park, formalising current arrangements.
   2. Reduced need to reverse ambulance vehicles to or from the site, with the looped access.
   3. Housing of ambulance vehicles inside a garage.
   4. Dedicated delivery vehicle bays accessed directly from Betka Road.
5. Although the applicant submitted that Bucknall Street is inadequate in width to accommodate two-way vehicle movement, this is an existing condition and there is nothing before me to suggest that traffic will be increased along Bucknall Street.
6. The proposed off-street car park is to provide six spaces on either side of a central access aisle. Spaces measure a minimum of 2.6 metres in width and with an access aisle width of 8.5 metres. These measurements comply with the minimum required under clause 52.06-9 of 2.6 metres and 6.4 metres, meaning that all vehicles will be able to enter and exit both the spaces as well as the car park itself in a forwards direction.

1. On the basis of the above, I find that there will be no unacceptable traffic or parking related issues.

1. The applicant made submissions about the likely impact of noise associated with the construction of the new facility. It is acknowledged that there is likely to be some noise and possible impacts from construction activity on the site, as there is with any construction activity.
2. In Victoria, non-domestic construction noise is regulated by the Environment Protection Authority, including the application of the general environmental duty.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

1. Before the development commences, 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 this 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 prepared by Four Sight architects dated December 2024 but modified to show:

(a) An amended materials and colours schedule with more muted tones to suit the local environment.

1. The layout of development must not be altered from the layout on the approved and endorsed plans without the written consent of the responsible authority.

1. The carparking design and works are to be done in accordance with the Proposed

Site Plan, Number: TP101 Rev 1, dated December 2024. 2. Before the building is occupied, any portion of Council's existing infrastructure damaged as a result of work undertaken on the site or associated with the development must be repaired/reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 3. Before the building is occupied, all stormwater runoff from the roofed and paved areas, including the main carpark, must be discharged by an underground drainage system connected to an approved point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the building is occupied, the concrete crossovers must be constructed at right angles to the roads to suit the proposed concrete driveways, in accordance with an approved design, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to any external lighting being installed details of the lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.
3. Prior to the completion of the approved development a 1.8 metres high acoustic fence shall be erected along the boundary of the site with 78-80 Betka Road to a span of 50 metres from the western corner of the application site. Thereafter the acoustic fence shall be retained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development is occupied, the landscaping shown on the approved landscape plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The responsible authority may consent in writing to vary this requirement.

1. At all times the landscaping shown on the approved landscape plan must be maintained (including the replacement of any dead, diseased or damaged plants) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. Before the development including demolition commences, tree protection fencing must be erected around the Tree Protection Zones of trees numbered 1,3 and 6 as shown on the submitted Tree Protection Plan (Drawing Number A101).

The tree protection fencing and Tree Protection Zone must be established and maintained in accordance with the following requirements to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:

(a) the tree protection fence must be constructed a detailed within the submitted Arboricultural Report;

(b) the tree protection fence must remain in place until the development is completed;

(c) the Tree Protection Zone must be covered by a 100 mm deep layer of mulch and watered regularly.

The responsible authority may consent in writing to vary any of these requirements.

1. During the course of construction, the Tree Protection Zone must not be used for:

(a) vehicular or pedestrian access

(b) trenching or soil excavation

(c) storage or dumping of materials, tools, equipment or waste.

The responsible authority may consent in writing to vary any of these requirements.

Department Energy, Environment and Climate Action conditions

1. Before works start, the permit holder must advise all persons undertaking vegetation removal or works on site of all relevant permit conditions and associated statutory requirements or approvals.
2. A suitably qualified wildlife handler or zoologist working under a relevant Management Authorisation issued by Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (the Department) must be contacted to relocate and capture affected wildlife where required. If displaced wildlife cannot be relocated on site to an appropriate location away from the construction footprint, or injured wildlife is captured, the Department should be contacted on 136 186 for further advice.

1. This permit as it relates to development (buildings and works) will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The development is not started within two (2) years of the issued date of this permit.

(b) The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issued date of this permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[2] [2010] VSC 583

[3] The extract is a part of the full Certificate. The full Certificate is attached at Appendix B.

[4] Or used as part of the adjoining caravan park from time to time.

[5] Source: Construction Impact Assessment with Tree Management Protection Plan, Rigoni Tree Solutions, 20/10/2023.