Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2025-07-03

The applicant submitted that they would limit the loading of vehicles and waste management to within business hours. I agree with the applicant that the waste management and loading arrangements could be conditioned to limit the impact on the residential neighbourhood.
In summary, a key concern is College Court. It provides the access and egress to the site. It is not a wide street and there are residential properties that front this street. These residential properties will be impacted by the access and egress arrangements. I further note that if a right hand turn to Aberdeen Street is a feasible option, then there should be consultation with HTV. The amended plans clearly indicated a 'left hand turn only' to this street.

I have a concern regarding the impact on the amenity of the adjoining and surrounding residential properties. As the proposed centre is to operate until 7pm, there would be air-conditioning/services noise, potential for light spill and the general noise with cars and small trucks and vans accessing and egressing the site.
As I have refused the proposed development, I make no comment regarding the proposed signage. I would not have refused the proposed development because of the signage but may have varied the size.

The fact that the review site has access to effectively three streets is an opportunity, but also, in this case a constraint. College Court is a local access urban street which has limited capacity, and limited width. Whilst the road can functionally carry an increase in traffic, it appears that the proposal has completely ignored the presence of residential properties that have their frontage to the street. This is a residential area, not a commercial one. The location of the childcare centre (on the corner of College Court, Aberdeen Street and Minerva Road) is a different context given its location and the fact that it has a history of a non-residential use. The proposal has failed to satisfactorily address the policies and strategies of council's non-residential uses policy and the provisions of the NRZ.
For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No permit is granted.

[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] AM Peak hour 7.30am-8.30am, PM Peak hour 4.30pm-5.30pm.

[3] 28 patients ever hour for 10 hours, results in a total of 280 vehicle movements per day.

Environment Act 1987

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998

Keras v Greater Geelong CC [2025] VCAT 577 (3 July 2025)

Keras v Greater Geelong CC [2025] VCAT 577

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (6 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (1)

Keras v Greater Geelong CC [2025] VCAT 577 (3 July 2025)