The Tribunal has long held that the officer's report is a relevant consideration to be taken into account in proceedings such as this. That is not to say, of course, that a Council is obliged to blindly follow the advice of its officers. However, as was made plain in Modern Living Design & Construction Pty Ltd v Box Hill CC & Ors (1988) 1 AATR 166, reports such as this represent the professional advice available at the time a Council reaches its decision. In this case we accept Mr Pitt's submission that the report was thoroughly prepared, comprehensively addressed all relevant issues, and is a document to which we should give weight.

1. I do give considerable weight to the Council's Delegate report in the current matter.

1. The following discussion relates to the key issues I have identified that influence my decision.

Does the location for the use comply with orderly and proper planning principles including compatibility with surrounding land use?

1. The Council has argued that the proposed Medical Centre will not integrate successfully into the NRZ at this site, and that its impact on neighbouring residential amenity would not be minimal. It considers the proposed use on this site in a local street would intrude into the residential neighbourhood contrary to local policy. This is contrary to its internal planning report.
2. The Council's argument is based on the matter that the site is within a Minimal Change Area, not on a main road, and not at a corner. It further noted that neither Eddys Grove nor the wider neighbourhood contain other non-residential uses apart from the existing corner-located medical centre abutting the review site at 222 Centre Road that would not require a planning permit under current planning scheme provisions.
3. Within its opposition the Council acknowledges that the both the NRZ (at Clause 32.09-1), and its Non Residential Uses in Residential Zones Policy (at Clause 22.02) provide for or in the latter case encourage smaller-scale medical centres in existing buildings, and their location at a road zone. However the Council also identified that Clause 22 specifically discourages non-residential uses from local streets which includes Eddys Grove.
4. The NRZ (Clause 32.09-1: Table 1 Table of Uses) in fact explicitly provides for smaller scale medical centres in existing buildings without the requirement for a planning permit subject to the following four specific criteria identified in Table 1 at
   • The gross floor area of all buildings must not exceed 250 square metres.
   • Must be located in an existing building.
   • The site must adjoin, or have access to, a road in a Road Zone.
   • Must not require a permit under clause 52.06-3.

(Clause 52.06-3 relates to land under a Parking Overlay, and does not apply here. A permit is therefore required for the current application, as the review site does not adjoin or have direct access to a road in the Road Zone.)

1. However as the Council also acknowledged, discretion can be applied in decisions where a proposal does not comply with one or more of the above pre-conditions.
2. Apart from the general purpose of implementing the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks, including the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and local planning policies, the purposes of the NRZ are (with my emphasis in italics):
   • To recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development.
   • To limit opportunities for increased residential development.
   • To manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristic.
   • To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines.
   • To allow educational, recreational, religious community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.

The three points (in italics) relate most directly to the current application.

1. The decision guidelines for the NRZ at Clause 32.09-11 require the following matters to be considered in making decisions for non-residential use and development. I have placed in italics those I consider to be most relevant to the current proposal:

• The State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
• The purpose of this Zone.

• Whether the use or development is compatible with residential use.
• Whether the use generally serves local community needs.
• The scale and intensity of the use and development.
• The design, height, setback and appearance of the proposed buildings and works.
• The proposed landscaping.
• The provision of car and bicycle parking and associated accessways.
• Any loading and refuse collection facilities.
• The safety, efficiency and amenity effects of traffic to be generated by the proposal.

1. The provisions of NRZ1 generally amend the application of some aspects of ResCode relating to Clauses 55 and 56 of the planning scheme that do not relate to the current proposal. Relevant to the current application it also applies the following additional decision guideline:
   • The layout and appearance of areas set aside for car parking, access and egress, loading and unloading and the location of any proposed off street car parking.

Other additional decision guidelines relate to subdivision and variation to ResCode standards that are not applicable to this application.

1. The intent of the Council's _Non-Residential Uses in Residential Zones Policy i_n the Local Planning Policy Framework Policy is as follows:

... to provide direction for applicants in terms of minimising residential amenity impacts, preferred locations and design of non-residential uses and facilities, such as a medical centre, place of worship, and place of assembly in a residential area. It also provides local residents with a degree of certainty as to what Council may allow within a residential area.

1. The policy includes objectives, policy statements and performance measures. It states that if the performance measure is met, it is deemed to satisfy the associated objectives and policy statements. It also states that 'proposals that do not meet these measures may still meet the objectives of this policy'. These principles are consistent with those for the application of ResCode.
2. The Policy includes the following objectives that were amended on 23 April 2015 from those that applied at the time that the application for the current matter was submitted and assessed:
   • For preferred location: To encourage the development or extension of non-residential uses, in suitable locations which comply with orderly and proper planning principles.
   • For design and siting: To successfully integrate non-residential uses into residential areas with minimal impact to the residential streetscape and the character of the area.
   • For landscaping: To respect the garden character of the neighbourhood.
   • For general amenity: To minimise the effect of non-residential uses on the residential amenity.
   • For advertising signage: To allow adequate and appropriate signage.
3. Objectives that were deleted in the April amendment, and that are now peripheral to the Tribunal's decision include the following:
   • To encourage proposals that retain the original housing stock within the municipality.
   • To maintain and protect any dwellings/buildings of historical/cultural significance.
   • To ensure that adequate provision is made for appropriate on-site parking for all non-residential uses.
   • To ensure that traffic generated by the use of the site is appropriate to the street and the locality and will not adversely affect existing traffic patterns and safety.
   • To maintain the garden character of the neighbourhood.
   • To minimise the effect of non-residential uses on the residential amenity by controlling staff levels, numbers of practitioners, hours of operation and the size and intensity of the use, as appropriate.
4. From the above I conclude that the proposed use can comply with orderly and proper planning principles.

Does the proposed use generally serve local community needs?

1. No substantiated information was provided that the proposed use would or would not serve local community needs. However, medical centres provide community service, and are necessary within communities. The NRZ provides conditionally for the use, and it is largely a market-driven decision as to whether the proposed use is locally required. Consistent with this, there is also no basis for the Tribunal to conclude that the proposal would introduce an excess of medical practitioners into the area.

Will the proposal successfully integrate into the local character and streetscape?

1. The Council has proposed that the Heritage Overlay is not a determining matter in this decision. This is because the existing dwelling would remain, and the demolition of the garage has no heritage implications. Ms Lane proposed that removal of the garage would open up vision along the driveway through to the rear of the site. She proposed that this has heritage implications as properties in Eddys Grove mainly have garages set along the driveways that disrupt such views. I agree with the Council's position and I do not discuss heritage matters further. The following also applies:
   • With the retention of the existing single vehicle crossover, the vehicle access and egress arrangements are not proposed to change.
   • The capacity for landscaping in the front setback would not change.
   • The adjacent existing medical centre has a side frontage to Eddys Grove and due to this, it has greater visual presence on Eddys Grove than does the deeper setback dwelling on the review site.
2. On the basis of the above I conclude that the use as proposed will have little impact on heritage values or the local streetscape.
3. The objectors have in part proposed that the rear car-parking area is inconsistent with local character in the NRZ1. This is not a clear matter. The rear carpark of the adjacent medical centre at 222 Centre Road abuts the rear boundary of the property at 220 Centre Road which in turn contains a large two storey multi dwelling medium density development built to within about 3m of the boundary, with high-silled service/utility room windows on that southern façade of the building. I conclude that there is no character incompatibility with that boundary and the use of the land on that adjoining property.
4. While in this instance the position of the site does moderate concerns about rear-space character, I do take the non-desirability of extensive paved rear carpark areas in residential areas into account with other associated matters. These include the provision for landscaping, layout and associated vehicle and human circulation, and functionality of the total space across the review site and the adjacent property containing the existing medical centre.

Will the proposal including the scale and the intensity of the use minimise impact on residential amenity?

1. I consider that proposed use and its scale and intensity of use would have minimal impact on residential amenity for the reasons I discuss below. I consider that the scale and amenity implications of the use will differ little from those of a standard residential premises. The primary potential impact would be at the abutting property to the south at 37 Eddys Grove. I consider that there will be no scale or intensity issues at the two-storey apartments abutting to the north at 220 Centre Road, or the properties directly and diagonally to the rear (west) of the review site (none of whom have objected to the permit application), due to the type and location of developments on those properties.
2. The proposed use intensity would be low even for medical centre uses, being restricted to that within the existing modest dwelling on the site, and to up to two practitioners at any one time.
3. The proposed hours of operation between 9am and 6pm on weekdays, and 9am-1 pm on Saturdays are entirely consistent with the 'operating hours' of most residences, and I note that EPA guidelines for most noise and associated disturbance in residential areas provide for 7am and 10pm commencement and cessation respectively. Further, after closing hours, the premises would be empty and would emanate no noise or activity. It is also common for medical centres to be located within and near residential areas, and the primary factor that separates the proposed use from being a Section 1 (Permit not Required) use at the review site is that it does not directly adjoin or have access to a road in a Road Zone.
4. However, the proposed use is intended to be conjunctive with that on the adjacent site that does adjoin Centre Road in the Road Zone. This does establish a continuity with Centre Road and is a different and more flexible scenario in a policy context, than if the review site was deeper into the suburban hinterland, or even one lot to the south where it would be separated from conjunctive use.
5. I expect that the traffic movements accessing onto and egressing from the proposed medical centre on the site would be slow-moving and relatively silent. As the movements would be limited in this case to within the 9am to 6pm, and 9am to 1pm time slots there would be no 'out of hours' disturbance from lights, noise or movement at the abutting residential property.
6. I also place little weight the Council's stated concern in its written submission over a 'potential for patients to take the easy option and park in the street rather the rear car park'. There is no requirement for users of a medical practice or any other commercial premises for that matter, to use on-site parking, and no evidence has been provided that street parking or traffic volumes should impact in my decision on this matter.
7. Despite this, at the time of my inspection during 'open' hours, I noted that the car park at the existing medical centre was being well used.
8. I therefore consider that the scale and intensity of the use at the proposed medical centre would minimise impact on general residential amenity

Does the proposal provide appropriate location, layout and appearance, and access to and egress from off-street car parking space?

1. During the Hearing it was identified that the existing dwelling on the review site appeared to be incorrectly sited relative to surrounding features. This has relevance to the size and configuration of the proposed car park at the rear of the site, including the size of car spaces and potentially to the position of the proposed car space for the disabled.
2. I issued an oral Order during the hearing that a formal survey of the site be implemented by a qualified surveyor to verify the position of the dwelling and to provide any associated comment on the implications of the survey relating to proposed on-site parking. This was to be provided to all parties to the Hearing within two weeks of the Hearing, with a further week for the other parties to provide any response. On 20 October 2015 the Permit Applicant submitted a written request for a seven to ten day extension of time to comply with the oral Order. As I considered the information to be provided was needed to enable an informed decision, and as third parties would not be adversely affected, I issued a written Order granting an extension of time to 30 October 2015 with allowance for any relevant comment on the submitted plan from the other parties to be submitted by 6 November 2015. The Order identified that no further communication would then be entered into.
3. The required Revised Plan of Survey prepared by MJ Reddie Surveys Pty Ltd (dated 24 October) and a revised Site Plan prepared by Urban Architecture Pty Ltd (dated 28 October 2015) were submitted to the Tribunal on 30 October 2015.
   • The survey plan indicates that the southern half of the rear of the existing dwelling projects about 0.5m less into the rear of the review site than indicated in the Permit Application documentation (site Plan prepared by Craig Corfield Building Designs dated 10 September 2014)
   • The revised Site Plan of 28 October 2015 shows the same space occupied by the proposed car parking area with the same configuration of 8 car spaces (including one space for the disable) and one shared space. The above-mentioned adjustment to the rear alignment of the dwelling on the site thus provides for a wider pedestrian space (by about 0.5m to 1.16m) between the four car spaces along the rear of the dwelling and the dwelling itself across its southern rear face. Car space widths are designated at either 2.6m or 2.4m.
4. Written comment on the document were received at the Tribunal from Yvonne Lane on 31 October 2015 and from Glen Eira City Council on 6 November 2015. Ms Lane's comments extended beyond content on the submitted plans. Such comment was unsolicited and extends beyond the opportunity provided during the Hearing for submissions. I have therefore taken no account of any content in Ms Lanes submitted comments that did not relate specifically to the submitted plans.
5. Both parties retained their initial position in opposing the application. The Council added that should the Tribunal be of a mind to grant a permit, the draft conditions provided to the Tribunal prior to the Hearing should be retained. These contain required dimensions of car parking spaces (2.7m wide), driveway width (3m), pedestrian access and landscaping that have required assessment against the plans submitted under order.
6. The Council proposed during the Hearing and through its submitted draft conditions that:
   • The width of all car spaces (excluding the disabled car space) increased to 2.7m. This would in turn reduce the total car spaces in the car park to eight.
   • The disabled car space is to be 2.4m wide plus a 2.4m shared area adjacent the space, designed to the Councils' satisfaction.
   • Provision of a 1.0m wide pedestrian pathway from the shared area of the disabled car space to the entrance of the medical centre.
   • The driveway must maintain a minimum 3.0m width.
   • Provision of a 0.8m wide blind aisle extension at both ends of the car park (north and south).
   • Provision of a 4m radius on the inside of the 90 degree bend (around the car space).
7. The revised plans submitted by the applicant on 30 October partially achieve these sought outcomes.
   • While the 'disabled' car space and adjacent shared space are provided for as above, the designated widths for the other car spaces are either 2.4m or 2.6m, which in a car space context is significant. I accept the Council's position that increasing the width to 2.7 m will reduce the total number of spaces to eight, including the one 'disabled' space. Depending on the interpretation of whether or not the disable space should count in the provision of five spaces for the first practitioner, and three for the subsequent this may be beneath the parking requirement in the planning scheme. However, given that I have no substantiated indication that unrestricted public parking is limiting in Eddys Grove I do not find against the application on the basis of there being provision for eight spaces.
   • A 1.0m wide pedestrian pathway is designated from the shared area of the disabled car space to the entrance of the medical centre. This is mainly directly against side of the building, within the total 4.19m wide setback between the southern common boundary with the property at 37 Eddys Grove. It effectively shifts the existing sealed driveway 1m south, away from the building towards the southern boundary. However, as the Council seeks a minimum driveway width of 3m (which is also designated in the plans), a width of only a 0.19m remains available for landscaping inside that northern boundary. The Council had proposed in its submission to the Tribunal that a 0.5m wide landscaping bed was inadequate in this situation. I consider that it is not feasible to provide a 0.19m wide strip with any screening capacity, and that this is not acceptable with the NRZ. It is reasonable to expect better at the interface between a commercial and a residential use in the NRZ.
   • The space between the rear of the premises on the site and the proposed car parks (for pedestrian movement) is widened at least 1.16m.
   • The size of the radius provided on the inside of the 90 degree bend (around the car space) is not identified.
8. Based on the above I find that the Council's draft conditions have endeavoured to find the best solution from an unsatisfactory situation.

1. I have partially discussed this matter in the above section and in previous content relating to the southern boundary, and to the retained front setback.
2. I regard the provision for landscaping on the 1.83m wide sewerage easement inside the western boundary (which can provide for shrubs but mot trees over the easement) to be adequate. The same applies inside the rear northern boundary at the rear of the apartments on the abutting property.
3. I accept that while the rear car parking area is needed, and elements of the landscaping provision are adequate, the proposal nevertheless does not contribute to a (rear) garden character in the local residential area.

1. This is a main consideration in my decision.
2. The applicant has contested that the review site can be considered to be a preferred location under Clause 22.02-2, as the proposal essentially extends the existing non-residential use (medical centre) at 222 Centre Road which is at a suitable location at a corner site on the Road Zone. This proposition has merit. However while the two medical centres could function conjunctively as a single business entity, that does not mean per se that the proposal provides a good planning outcome for the site. This is for reasons discussed below.
3. One the one hand it is argued that the proposal provides for an expanded medical practice. If this is the case the total floor area exceeds 250m2 although in two separate entities on two separate titles, with less than 250m2 on the current review site.
4. I have previously identified that the vehicle access provision at the subject site is limiting.
5. The physical separation of the two centres and their respective carparks would be a potential complication or inconvenience for patrons who may need to shift between the two premises. However, it is not a fatal matter for the application because pedestrian access can be provided between the two carparks, and patrons cannot be required to use the on-site carparks anyway. This is a contributory factor rather than a determinative factor in my decision.
6. The application does not include the provision for signage. This could be provided conditionally with in the NRZ, but I consider that the requirement for signage should be contained within a permit application. It is not for the Tribunal to consider the wording on a sign and hence its size and location without a basis for consideration. While the Council proposed that the proposed facility should operate on an 'appointments-only' basis I find that the Tribunal does not have sufficient information to dictate on that matter, which would clearly have signage implications.
7. I received mixed messages as to whether or not the medical centre would be staffed. As I have previously identified the Council stated that it understood that such staffing would not occur. I felt that during the Hearing this matter became unclear. It find it difficult to accept that a stand-alone building housing professional medical people and a waiting room facility should not be serviced by reception staff, whether or not the facility operated on an appointments-only basis. The Tribunal's role in this matter is to determine if the proposed use is appropriate on the site. I do not consider it to be the Tribunal's role to dictate how best the business should be run, but I find that other matters discussed including the efficient movement of people and signage flow from this.
8. I therefore find that the application provides insufficient information to enable a well-considered decision to be made.

1. No evidence or other substantiated information was provided to the Tribunal on local street traffic and parking use, and the Council's internal traffic engineering advice did not identify issues on this matter. At the times of my two inspections on a weekday and at a weekend (both during operational hours at the adjacent medical practice at 222 Centre Road) there were ample vacant street parking spaces, despite the immediate proximity of the Bentley Activity Centre. I also accept that additional traffic generation from a small-scale medical practice on the review site will be minimal relative to existing traffic movement in the area.
2. In addition, the application proposal generally satisfies the on-site parking requirements in terms of the number of spaces provided, although it may be that this can be questioned if the number of spaces was to be reduced to eight including a parking space for the disabled. As I have previously mentioned there is no obligation for patrons of the medical centre to park on the site, there are no parking restrictions in Eddys Grove. Street parks are also public spaces.
3. I therefore do not find against the proposal on the basis of traffic and off-site parking considerations.

1. Drainage matters are a Council responsibility under the Water Act 1989, and are generally covered in Planning Permit conditions 'to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority'. No matters of concern were identified from the Council's internal referrals process and no other material was provided to the Tribunal on this matter. My decision is therefore not influenced by drainage matters.

1. The Council stated that it has a record of past resident complaints about the existing medical centre at 222 Centre Road. These were stated to relate to parking in Eddys Grove and breaches of approved operating hours. Ms Lane also inferred to the Tribunal that the operation of the existing adjacent medical centre has breached permit conditions in the past, and that this should be taken into account in the Tribunal's decision on the current matter.
2. The Tribunal considers the appropriateness of land use and development proposals in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The regulation of planning permit conditions is matter for the Council. My decision here is therefore not influenced by planning condition compliance matters on adjoining land.

1. The Tribunal can give no weight in this decision to an objector concern that inadequate landscape maintenance occurs at the existing medical practice at 222 Centre Road.

1. On balance of all matters I have discussed above, the decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed. No permit is to issue.

[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.

[2] Modern Living Design and Construction Pty Ltd v Box Hill CC and Ors (1988) 1 AATR 166 as discussed in Deal Corporation v Yarra CC [2003] VCAT 573