1. Details of operations of the use; 2. Arrangements for supervision of residents/tenants;

1. Management of behavioural problems within the building and outdoor communal areas, and the potential impact on adjoining and nearby residents; 2. Arrangements for nearby residents to direct complaints as appropriate; 3. Arrangements for storage and disposal of waste; 4. House rules for the purpose of protecting the amenity of the area; 5. Details of the person in charge of the use; 6. Provision of signage advising residents of the boarding house to respect the peace ad quiet of the neighbourhood; 7. Communication plan with Council and the Victoria Police; 8. Check in times for guests;

1. Hours of operation of the boarding house and curfews (if any);

1. Management and maintenance of the internal and external common areas of the boarding house; 2. Waste disposal and collection arrangements; 3. Use of nominated outdoor areas; 4. The name and contact details of the person responsible for the day to day management of the premises; 5. The management of on-site car parking; 6. Other matters as appropriate; 8. Before the use starts no fewer than 8 car spaces must be provided, and this number must not be varied without the written permission of the Responsible Authority, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 9. The car parking bays, spaces and accessways must be properly constructed, surfaced, drained, line-marked (where applicable) and maintained to the satisfaction to the Responsible Authority. 10. Parking areas, drop-off bays, turning bays and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times, to the satisfaction of the responsible Authority. 11. Alarms must be directly connected to a security service and must not produce noise beyond the premises, to the satisfaction of the responsible Authority. 12. Equipment, services and architectural features, other than those shown on the endorsed plans, must not be placed above the roof level of the building unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority. 13. The amenity of the area must, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, not be detrimentally affected by the use or development, through:

1. Transportation of materials, goods or commodities to ir from the land; 2. Appearance of any building, works or material;

1. Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil;

1. Presence of vermin; 2. In any other way 14. Before the development starts a Stormwater Management Plan 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 will then form part of the Permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three (3) copies must be provided. The plan must show: 1. Discharge of stormwater from the land by means of an underground pipe drainage system designed on the basis of a 10 year average storm recurrence interval discharging into an approved outlet in the street or an underground pipe drain, and not discharge from any pipe or paved area onto the surface of any adjacent land. 2. Stormwater discharge restricted as required by the Responsible Authority. 15. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

1. The development is not commenced within 2 (two) years from the date of issue for this permit; 2. The development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of this permit;

1. The use is not commenced within six (6) months from the date of completion of the development.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

1. The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a permit in accordance with this order, pursuant to section 85(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Mr P Connor, of Counsel, by direct brief Mr Connor called the following expert witnesses on Day 2:

• Mr G Weston, a consultant social planner, of Urbis Pty Ltd, and
• Ms C Dunstan, a consultant traffic engineer, of Traffix Group Pty Ltd.

• Mr N Kupfer, the applicant for review/ permit applicant, who gave sworn evidence.

Ms Marshall called Mrs C Molesworth, one of the Respondents/Objectors as a witness on Day 1.

Mr J Curtain, Mrs M Hemmings, Mr D McLean and Mrs C Molesworth (all in person) on each day.

Mr V Williams, Ms L Marshall and Mr B Moffitt, all in person, on Days 1 and 2.

1. This is an application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("the Act") brought by the Permit Applicant for review of a decision of the Whitehorse City Council ("the Responsible Authority") to refuse to grant a permit for the use of the land at 49 Vanbrook Street, Forest Hill, for a residential building and a reduction in carparking associated with the use.

1. The subject land is on the north side of Vanbrook Street, Forest Hill. Everglade Avenue runs in a southerly direction from Vanbrook Avenue and the subject land is approximately 30 metres east of the intersection with Everglade Avenue. The subject land has a frontage of 15.952 metres, a depth of 38.405 metres, an a area of 714 square metres. The subject land contains a double storey brick veneer attached dwelling which is setback 6.4 metres from Vanbrook Avenue. There are two driveways, one abutting the east boundary and one abutting the west boundary. The easterly driveway provides access to a double carport and the western driveway provides access to a double garage. The garage and carport each provides two car spaces side by side and the driveways provide two car spaces side by side in tandem with the garage and carport. Eight car spaces are therefore available with four being in the garage and carport and four in the driveways in a tandem arrangement. Access to the driveways is by a 3 metre wide crossovers from Vanbrook Street.
2. The officer report said that the dwelling has a floor area of 641 square metres and includes 11 bedrooms, six with ensuites, a living loom, kitchen, dining area and laundry. The private open space is at the rear of the dwelling which is setback approximately 6 metres from the rear boundary. The officer report said that the dwelling had been adapted to a residential building providing 14 habitable rooms accommodating 13 occupants.

1. It is proposed to use the property for a residential building and to have a reduction in the car parking required. Ms Marshall, in her written submission for the Responsible Authority, said that alterations to the existing building have already been made. She said that four bedrooms are provided at ground floor level, including one with ensuite facilities, and also at ground floor level are a living room, dining room, office for a resident manager, a laundry and kitchen. Ms Marshall said that at first floor level there are six bedrooms, five of which have en suites, a living room and a storeroom.
2. Ms Marshall said that the officer report summarised the use as follows:
   • The owner is proposing to let rooms to individual tenants.
   • None of the rooms are to be let on a self contained basis although some have an attached ensuite.
   • Tenants are generally single individuals between 20-50 years and most tenants are males. None have children with them.
   • Most tenants have some form of social or economic disadvantage.
   • Under half of the tenants have vehicles which are parked or garaged on the premises.
   • Tenants generally stay between 6 months to 2.5 years.
3. Ms Marshall said that the applicant for review/permit applicant proposes to employ a live in manager, however it is now intended to have a lead tenant.
4. Ms Marshall said that buildings and works are not proposed as part of the application and the only works proposed are minor rectification works to ensure compliance with building requirements.

1. The subject land is covered by the Whitehorse Planning Scheme and is in a Residential 1 zone which is the subject of clause 32.01. A combination is a section 2 - permit required use.
2. Clause 52.23 of the planning scheme provides:

A permit is not required to use a building, including outbuildings normal to a dwelling to house a person, people and any dependents or 2 or more people (including people with intellectual disabilities) if the building meets all of the following requirements:

• Is in an area or zone which is used mainly for housing.
• Provides self contained accommodation.
• Does not have any more than 10 habitable rooms.

1. The proposal is for more than ten habitable rooms. The exemption contained in clause 52.23 therefore does not apply and a permit is required.
2. Clause 52.06, Car Parking, applies to the proposal. Clause 52.06-1, Car Spaces, provides that the table at Clause 52.06-5 sets out the number of car spaces required. The table sets out a parking requirement of one car space per lodging room and for 11 bedrooms, 11 car spaces will be required. A permit may be granted to reduce or to waiver the number of car spaces required by the table.
3. Reference was made to relevant planning policy, including Clause 22.03, Residential Development.

1. The grounds of refusal were:
   1. The proposed use does not provide the required number of on-site car spaces, thus failing to meet the purpose of Clause 52.06 (Car Parking).
   2. The proposal provides poor on-site car parking arrangement compromising on-site traffic management and efficient vehicle movement.
   3. The proposed use will compromise the amenity of nearby residential properties by way of causing unreasonable nuisance and noise.
   4. The proposed use provides poor internal amenity and access for future occupants of Bedroom 4.
   5. The proposed use will impact on the existing on-street car parking condition of Vanbrook Street.
2. Mr Connor, in his written submission for the applicant for review/permit applicant on Day 4 submitted:

On the first day of this hearing, Council's advocate raised additional grounds or arguments which were not the subject of its refusal. It was suggested that:

• as a consequence of the history of non-compliance on the subject site and the failure to obtain appropriate planning permission for a past illegal use, the Tribunal should not be confident that "any permit issued will be complied with".
• bedrooms 5, 6 and 7 would provide poor internal amenity for future residents.2

1. The grounds of application for review were:
   1. The proposed use is a residential one and is appropriate to this location.
   2. The proposal use is consistent with planning policies that promote social equity, housing choice and housing affordability.
   3. The proposal makes efficient use of a very large building that has limited appeal as a single dwelling and that does not easily lend itself to other uses.
   4. The proposed use already has adequate provision for on -site parking, having regard to the lower car ownership rates of prospective tenants.
   5. The proposed use can be managed to prevent undue off-site amenity impacts, primarily through the appointment of a live-in house manager.
   6. The proposal offers internal amenity standards that are either commensurate with or better than most other residential buildings.

1. Mr Kupfer, the applicant for review/permit applicant, said that he purchased the property with settlement on 1 March 2004. Mr Kupfer said that there were two outstanding building permits, dated 22 November 1996 and 26 April 1998 and that the owners had a list of items requiring rectification before a certificate of final inspection can be issued.
2. Mr Kupfer said that prior to settlement he commenced searching for residents and made approaches to local churches, Deakin University and Forest Hill Secondary College. He said that he also used the internet and this lead to a number of enquiries.
3. Mr Kupfer said that his screening of tenants was quite simple when he first start looking for tenants and he admitted that it was almost non existent when the house was closed down. He said initially he would involve other tenants in the selection process, and ask potential tenants where they were coming from, where they worked and what was their income. He said that he made no attempt to contact any referees on the basis that he was giving people a second chance. He said that he assumed, perhaps naively, that they will do the right thing, and the majority of tenants did the right thing especially in the early years around 2004 and 2005 although he conceded that in hindsight he should have been more diligent.
4. Mr Kupfer said that around early 2005 he started getting calls from crisis accommodation providers and he was told that only suitable people had been screened would be sent to his house and indeed not be concerned, as people had presented to them with challenge and behavioural will be faced somewhere else. Mr Kupfer said that the first couple of people referred to him were "great". Mr Kupfer said:

It seemed too easy and the tenants had supposedly been pre-screened by the case worker sending them to me.

1. He said that this may have been the case in early 2005 and possibly late 2005 but as rentals became harder to find screening criteria employed by some crisis accommodation agencies was relaxed or non existent and he did not know that this was occurring. He said that this meant that some people referred had difficulties with alcohol, drugs, anger and mental health issues. Mr Kupfer said that he is not trained in recognising someone with such difficulties and there was no support for them once they have moved into his premises.
2. Mr Kupfer said that as time went on anti social behaviour incidents became worse and he was being called to resolve disputes or evict people after fights had occurred. He said that he would make application for VC AT for eviction of persons when another tenant had agreed to be a witness, but then the witness decided against giving evidence. Mr Kupfer said that this made it very difficult to evict someone who was a serious threat to the safety of other tenants "or as I found recently, neighbours".
3. Mr Kupfer said that based on his experience while the premises was operating as a rooming house between 15 March 2004 and 19 November 2007 and based on what he had learnt from neighbours screening needed improvement. He said that he would engage in professional persons who conduct screening and the person performing screening and interviewing "will be possess qualifications in Alcohol and Other Drug Work (AOD) alongside with a Community Welfare Work (WWW)". Mr Kupfer said that he would have a lead tenant, chosen by the "AOD" "CWW worker" and hire a cleaner to come in approximately once per week to tidy the common areas.
4. Mr Kupfer was served with a building notice from the municipal building surveyor for the City of Whitehorse under cover of a letter dated 22 March 2007. The building notice stated that building work had been carried out in contravention with the building regulations and the building work had been carried out without a building work and that the building was being used in contravention of the Building Regulations 2006. The notice required that Mr Kupfer show cause within 30 days while building works had been carried out without a building permit and why the building should not be brought in conformity with the building regulations.
5. Mr Kupfer was served with a notice from the planning enforcement officer for the City of Whitehorse dated 23 March 2007 stating that the use of the premises was in contravention of clause 52.23 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme and rectification was required by either removing the number of persons accommodated at the premises, reducing the number of rooms to find disabled rooms, or a planning permit application.
6. Mr Kupfer was served with an Emergency Order dated 1 November 2007 under cover of a letter from the council dated 2 November 2007. The order, signed by the Municipal Building Surveyor, stated that the Order was necessary because of danger to life and property arising out of the condition of the building and listed the items requiring rectification. The notice required that the owners and occupiers by 8.00 am on 19 November 2007 indefinitely evacuate the building. The covering letter said that the council was concerned about the rehousing of residents and had been working with a number of accommodation support agencies to arrange suitable options for temporary, medium and long term rehousing.
7. The letter said that in an inspection that we can reveal that the building did not meet adequate fire safety and health requirements and presented a significant risk to the safety of all occupants.
8. The building was vacated accordingly and is now occupied by a family. Mr Kupfer said that he was not prepared to carry out the necessary works unless he was issued with a permit. He said that otherwise the money will be spent for no purpose.
9. Ms Marshall, in her written submission for the Responsible Authority submitted:

In this case, the Tribunal has something of a benefit associated with the fact that the boarding house illegally commenced operations some time ago.

What is clear from the objection letters lodged with Council (and will no doubt become evident from presentations to the Tribunal by objectors), is that the boarding house use, illegally commenced, did create amenity effects on adjoining and nearby residents. Partly this must be attributed to the lack of a management plan, an on- site manager or anyone whose responsibility it was to provide an adequate level of amenity for adjoining residents.

What is evident from the complaints that are contained in the objections in Council's records is that:

• there was no rhyme or reason to the day of the week that disturbances occurred;
• incidents usually occurred late at night - often around 2am;
• incidents usually involved allegations of yelling, swearing and abusive conduct;
• incidents sometimes, but not always resulted in emergency services organisations being called to the property.

In addition to these amenity impacts, there are amenity issues associated with the alterations and additions to the property done when it was a single dwelling and not requiring a planning permit, but which now facilitate the use of the building for a residential building.

1. Ms Marshall summarised the issues raised in the objection which included concern about the scale of the use in a quiet residential street, legal works on site, use as a boarding house for the past three years, and behaviour of residents, which was said to include criminal activity.
2. Ms Marshall submitted that it is apparent that there was a lack of control over the conduct of residents during the illegal operation of the boarding house.
3. A number of residents were respondents/objectors and made oral and written submissions expressing concern. Mrs Molesworth of 51 Vanbrook Street which abuts the subject land on its east boundary, made oral and written submissions on behalf of herself and her husband and others. Ms Molesworth was called as a witness by Ms Marshall and gave sworn evidence and was cross examined. Mrs Molesworth said that their principle objection was the extreme nature of the social disruption that the use had caused in the past. Ms Molesworth said that whilst the boarding house had been operating, an increasingly through 2006 and 2007, their household had subject to frequent disruption. This included excessive noise both day and night frequently to 4.00 am or 5.00 am. Ms Molesworth said that on a number of occasions police tendered several times on one night and the problem was at its worst in 2007. Mrs Molesworth said that they had called for police assistance on many occasions but she said that they were not the only ones that called.
4. Mr D Mclean made oral and written submissions on behalf of himself and his wife, Mrs K Mclean. The Mcleans live at 47 Vanbrook Street which abuts the subject land on its west side. Mr McLean expressed concern about overlooking from a common room at the upper level into their private open space and into their kitchen and other rooms. Mr McLean said that whilst the dwelling had been used as a boarding house there were occasions on which they had felt intimated and frightened for the safety of themselves and their property.
5. It is clear, and it was conceded by Mr Kupfer, that whilst the dwelling had been used as a boarding house the behaviour had deteriorated and was totally unacceptable at the time that the premises were closed.

1. A number of matters were not in dispute, at least between the council and the applicant for review/permit applicant. Ms Marshall submitted:

There are some things which are not in issue in this case:

There is no question that the state planning policy framework contemplates the supply of well-located affordable housing in appropriate locations;

Similarly, there is no question that Council's policy work, both as a member of the Eastern Regional Housing Working Group, its own housing study and its own Social and Affordable Housing Policy all recognise the need for maintenance and increasing supply of affordable housing;

There is also no dispute between Council and the applicant that there is a community need for this kind of housing in its municipality and across Melbourne.

It is also apparent that the proposed use is a residential use and is therefore appropriate in a residential zone.

1. Mrs Marshall said that the starting point is whether this is a good location for the proposed use and whether it accords with the state planning policy framework (SPPF) and the local planning policy framework (LPPF). Ms Marshall said that the SPPF acknowledges the need to provide a range of housing including affordable housing but she submitted that there seemed to be a particular emphasis on provision of this type of housing and activity centres, strategic redevelopment sites and transit cities, although she conceded that this is not an exclusive set of criteria. Ms Marshall said that people likely to reside in such accommodation are less likely to own or have access to a motor vehicle, and will have at least the same needs, and sometimes greater needs, to access community resources compared to the balance of the population. Ms Marshall said that those people should be able to access such resources by an easy walk.
2. Ms Marshall said that the site is not within an activity centre, a strategic redevelopment site or a transit city. I was told that the Box Hill principal activity centre and the Centrelink office are 4.5 kilometres away, Forest Hill Chase and its associated facilities are 1.3 kilometres away and the Nunawading Railway Station is 2.3 metres away.
3. Ms Marshall submitted that there are no outstanding features of the site that would make it a particularly good site for this use.
4. Mr Connor, for the applicant for review/permit applicant, on the other hand submitted that the proposal had a wealth of policy support. Mr Connor drew attention to the officer report which said after the heading "Consistency with planning scheme":

It is acknowledged that the use will provide affordable housing types in an establisher residential area. While the proposal is consistent with the State planning policies which seek to ensure housing stock matches housing demand by widening housing choice...

However, the Officer also states within the same paragraph that:

....the adaptation of the existing dwelling into 10 rooms is not an example of well designed housing and the use does not respect the amenity of the neighboring properties.

It is submitted that there is important policy in this case that has not been identified by the Officer.

1. Member Liston and Member Lothian (as they then were) dealt with the issue of policy in Tulcany v Knox City Council [2003] VCAT 1627 and said:

...in common parlance each of the subject buildings are used as boarding houses. This factor has in our view a number of important social and economic ramifications ie.

• In general terms the availability of boarding house type accommodation has been in decline, and has not been a particularly prevalent aspect of housing supply in outer suburban locations such as this, therefore, new boarding houses in this location are an important addition to the diversity of housing types available to the local community;
• Boarding houses in general, and these boarding houses in particular, are an important aspect of what is described as social housing, important in the provision of housing for disadvantaged groups in the community, who would otherwise verge on homelessness.

Therefore, it can be argued that these boarding houses contribute to the satisfaction of an important social and economic need in this community, and are therefore strongly supported by the Planning Policy Framework, and that these conclusions are important factors in striking an appropriate balance between competing policy requirements.

There is a need for boarding houses within the community, boarding houses are a residential use, residential areas are the appropriate location for boarding houses, therefore it would be inappropriate to find that boarding house should not be located in a particular residential environment because of the slightly heighten risk of anti social behaviour, when the implication of that decision is that a boarding houses would be generally inappropriate in almost all residential environments.

1. Member Richards (as she then was) said in Drewgood Pty Ltd v Knox CC [2007] VCAT 2256:

These boarding houses are ordinary residential dwellings, in ordinary streets that accommodate persons who are only able to afford rental of a room.

1. This is an appropriate site. I do not believe that it can be seriously entertained that this type of housing should be located in activity centres, strategic redevelopment sites and transit cities only and not in residential areas. Ms Marshall submitted that this is not an exclusive set of criteria. I think that the correct position was that set out by then Member Richards in Drewgood Pty Ltd, that these are ordinary residential dwellings in ordinary streets that accommodate persons who are only able to afford rental of a room. All members of the community have a need to access community resources from time, and I accept the submission of Ms Marshall that these residents may have greater needs. I do not accept the submission that they should have access necessarily by an easy walk.
2. Community resources are often regionally based rather than local. I accept the submission of Ms Marshall that relevant community facilities are some distance away, certainly further than a "quite easy walk", but it was the evidence of Mr Weston, who was called as an expert witness for the applicant for review, that some facilities are within what might be an easy walking distance and major bus routes are a short walk away. Access by bus to community resources is not inappropriate.
3. Ms Dunstan, a consultant traffic engineer, who was called as an expert witness for the applicant for review/permit applicant, provided details of bus routes within walking distance.
4. It is clear that there is a need for this type of accommodation within the City of Whitehorse. I consider that this is an appropriate location and I adopt what then Member Rickard's said in Drewgood Pty Ltd, i.e that boarding houses are ordinary residential dwellings in ordinary streets that accommodate persons who are only able to afford rental of the room.
5. I consider that the proposal does have policy support and I am supported in this by what was said in the officer report and also what was said by then Member Liston and then Member Lothian in Tuclany Pty Ltd.
6. The then Member Listen and Member Lothian considered the issue of need in Tuclany Pty Ltd and said:

There is a need for boarding houses within the community, boarding houses are a residential use, residential areas are appropriate locations for boarding houses, therefore it would be inappropriate to find that boarding houses should not be located in a particular residential environment because of the slightly heighten risk of anti boarding social behaviour, when the implication of that decision is that a boarding houses would be generally inappropriate in almost all residential environments.

1. I accept what was said in Tuclany Pty Ltd and I think that it applies in this instance.

1. Two car spaces are proposed to be side by side in a double garage and two side by side in a double carport, with four car spaces in tandem with these car spaces. The table at clause 52.06-5 of the planning scheme provides for a requirement of 11 car spaces for 11 bedrooms. A permit may be granted under clause 52.06-1 to reduce the number of car spaces.
2. Ms Marshall submitted that the council accepts that there is a generally lower rate of car ownership for the tenants of a boarding house than in other residential accommodation and that this justifies a reduction in the amount of on site car parking provided. Ms Marshall said that in Drewgood Pty Ltd the Tribunal accepted a rate of 0.44 car spaces per room and Ms Marshall submitted that the Tribunal decision was based on community facilities being within walking distance. Ms Marshall said that this site does not have a similar level of services within easy walking distance which is likely to mean that people without cars or access to a vehicle would be less inclined to rent a room in this boarding house than might be the case in other locations. Ms Marshall also submitted that the tandem arrangement of the car parking was not an arrangement which would work in circumstances whether it be multiple separate occupants, and that such an arrangement would be a poor outcome for car only tenants as well as for other residents in the street that may be affected by on street car parking.
3. It was the evidence of Ms Dunstan that the level of parking demand would be within the range of 0.3 to 0.5 cars per bedroom as car ownership is influenced by income as well as public transport accessibility. This would mean that six car spaces would be required. Ms Dunstan said that the site has suitable public transport in the nearby area on weekdays, evenings and weekends and that car ownership would not be necessary to meet a resident's daily requirements for work, shopping etc. Ms Dunstan said that an adequate number of secure bicycle parking spaces could be provided also.
4. Ms Dunstan said that a demand of three to six car spaces could be accommodated with limited reliance on tandem parking. Ms Dunstan said however that the use of tandem parking would be acceptable as the facility would be effectively a shared house with residents sharing living and cooking areas, and have ample opportunity to arrange to shuffle cars if required.
5. It was the evidence of Ms Dunstan that sufficient car parking was provided on site and that a permit could be granted to reduce the number of car spaces required. I accept the evidence of Ms Dunstan.
6. I consider that the demand for a place in this boarding house would be dictated by a person's income and other circumstances rather than whether they own a motor vehicle. If they do not own a motor vehicle adequate bus services are available within easy walking distance. I accept the evidence of Ms Dunstan that the demand for car parking would be relatively low and could be accommodated on site, and issues associated with tandem car parking could be dealt with satisfactorily.

1. It is clearly accepted by the applicant for review/permit applicant that the previous use of the premises as a boarding house had an intolerable impact on the amenity enjoyed by adjoining and nearby residents.
2. Ms Marshall submitted:

It is submitted that this is a case where the Tribunal ought to take into account the history of non-compliance o he subject site in relation to the proposed use. It is apparent that there has been a lack of appropriate care and control exercised by the landowner since the commencement of the use. In this regard, the failure to obtain the requisite permission associated with the change of use and the failure to make the necessary enquiries of Council and/or expert advice are indicative of a failure to understand the complexities of running such a business. Indeed, it wasn't until Council issued an emergency order requiring evacuation of the building that any steps were taken to make the subject site safe.

Further, it is apparent that there was a lack of control over the conduct of residents at the site during the boarding house's previous illegal iteration. Even now there appears to be some potential on the part of the owner for previous levels of complaints, based on the report of Mr Weston.

The critical matter to deliver an acceptable amenity outcome is to properly manage the boarding house and appropriately screen prospective residents before they take up residence. However, the screening should not create a further barrier to affordable housing for those who cannot produce, for example, glowing references from an estate agent.

Given the socio-economic profile of their prospective residents, it must be accepted that boarding houses are more likely to give rise to occasional conflicts and disagreements amongst the residents. There is the potential for anti-social behaviour occurring, for example, when a resident is affected by alcohol or is asked to leave as a result of failures to comply with the house rules. Good management is critical at these times but it cannot eradicate or absolutely ensure that a boarding house resident will never create a nuisance. Neither can it be guaranteed that perfect behaviour (or behaviour acceptable to neighbours) will occur in any given residential property.

If poor behaviour cannot occur from time to time at these types of premises, then permits will never be granted for them. A Council which has a vision for its municipality as a caring and inclusive community ought to facilitate this use. In the Drewgood case the Tribunal referred to the Residential Accommodation Issues Paper (2007) (Consultation Paper) Consumer Affairs Victoria and stated that:

...rooming houses play a pivotal role in providing accommodation for the vulnerable and disadvantaged ...

As part of the planning process, it must be accepted that appropriate permit conditions can and will have the effect of creating an acceptable boarding house.

1. Mr Connor went on to cite the decision of then Member Rickards in Drewgood Pty Ltd in which she included a condition requiring a management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Tribunal in Tulcany Pty Ltd also required a Management Plan. I consider that such a plan is necessary and would provide the council with the means to deal with unacceptable behaviour arising from poor management or otherwise.
2. The original proposal was for a manager and this may have interpreted as a full time manager. I do not believe that a boarding house of this size could support a full time manager. Mr Weston in his evidence under the heading "On Site Manager" says that it is intended to recruit a "lead tenant" or "trustee" to assist in the management of the boarding house. Mr Kupfer in his evidence, expands on that concept.
3. I consider it appropriate that there be a Site Management Plan setting out what it is considered to be required for effective management, to ensure that the lives of residents of adjoining and nearby properties are not be made unpleasant by the use. The draft conditions provided by the Responsible Authority include a requirement for a Site Management Plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Ms Marshall submitted on Day 1 that because of past circumstances the Tribunal could not be satisfied that conditions on any permit could be complied with. Mr Connor submitted that as soon as Mr Kupfer was aware that he needed a permit for the use of the land as a boarding house and was directed to cease the use he both ceased the use and applied for a permit. Mr Connor submitted that Mr Kupfer has a track record of compliance with council requirements and directions.
5. If a permit is granted it must generally be assumed that conditions will be complied with. If there is a breach of a permit enforcement action is available.
6. I consider that with appropriate management in accordance with a Site Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority the risk of anti social behaviour would be considerably reduced. The risk will nevertheless be present but I agree with then Member Liston and Member Lothian that it would be inappropriate to find that a boarding house should not be located in a particular residential environment because of the slightly heightened risk of anti social behaviour.
7. Mr McLean was concerned about overlooking into his property from a common room on the upper level. This is a legitimate concern and can be dealt with by condition.

1. Ms Marshall expressed concern about the amenity of some bedrooms with respect to solar access and access to bathroom facilities.
2. Mr Connor submitted that all of the proposed bedrooms have good proportions, access to daylight and ventilation and living areas and common areas are generously sized and suited to the use.
3. I consider that use of the building as proposed would provide an appropriate level of amenity for residents.

1. The Responsible Authority provided draft conditions and I took submissions on those draft conditions. It is appropriate that there be some redrafting.
2. Draft Condition 7 was for a Site Management Plan. This could incorporate the provisions for waste management as set out in Draft Condition 6. I also consider to reflect the provisions of Condition 2 in Drewgood Pty Ltd with respect to such a plan.

1. This is a not purpose designed building but I nevertheless consider that it can provide a good standard of accommodation for 11 people as proposed, and if properly managed it would not impact in an unacceptable way on the quality of life enjoyed by residents of adjoining and nearby properties. I consider for the reasons stated above that a permit subject to conditions should be granted.
2. The council provided that I might consider if I was to decide that a permit should be granted. I took submissions on those draft conditions. The permit will be subject to conditions generally in accordance with those draft conditions but with some redrafting.

1. For the above reasons this application is allowed. It is appropriate that a permit subject to conditions be granted and I will so order.