//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2003] VCAT 1880
respondent. The Council’s decision in permit application P0074/03 was varied. A permit was directed to issue for use and development of No. 1 Chenery Street for four dwellings, in accordance with endorsed...
The Tribunal allowed the four-dwelling proposal to proceed, with changes to the permit conditions. It accepted that housing could be appropriate within this Business 1 Zone location because the planning scheme also supported more housing in central Mansfield. It considered the proposed design and conditions adequate to address nearby business activity, access, construction and amenity concerns. The decision is a site-specific planning assessment, not a general rule that residential development is always appropriate in a Business 1 Zone.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
2,312 words · generated 01/10/2026
In Lines v Mansfield SC [2003] VCAT 1880, Mr S Lines and others applied under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review Mansfield Shire Council’s decision to grant a permit for four dwellings at No. 1 Chenery Street, Mansfield ([1]). The Council’s Notice of Decision was issued on 18 June 2003, and the review application was lodged on 7 July 2003 ([1]). The Tribunal, constituted by Member Margaret Baird, heard the matter on 5 December 2003 and made its order on 15 December 2003.
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
The subject land was a 655-square-metre site in a Business 1 Zone, near the intersection of Chenery and High Streets ([2], [12]). It contained a former squash-court building, part of which remained in squash-court use ([3]). The surrounding area had a range of activities: shops and businesses to the north and west, a furniture showroom and warehouse to the south, and a petrol station and car wash to the east ([4]–[6]). The southern laneway served as a delivery and loading area for a nearby business and provided vehicle access to smaller businesses to the west ([5], [26]).
The proposal was to reuse the existing building shell for four two-storey dwellings. The plans included balconies, light-wells, render, proposed glazing treatments and six car spaces accessed from the laneway ([8]–[11]). The Tribunal described the central questions as whether residential use was appropriate in the Business 1 Zone, whether existing businesses would be unreasonably affected, whether access and storage arrangements would be affected, whether internal amenity was acceptable, and whether public parking would be affected ([16]).
The Tribunal varied the Council’s decision and directed that a permit issue. It replaced Condition 3 with a requirement for an agreement under section 173 of the Act, addressing purchasers’ and tenants’ awareness of surrounding commercial uses and the Business 1 zoning. It also replaced Condition 10 with a requirement for a Construction Management Plan before development began, including demolition and material removal. The plan was to address such matters as fencing, access, construction-worker parking, deliveries, storage and a liaison officer (Order).
The Tribunal did not treat the Business 1 zoning as an automatic bar to residential use. It identified a policy tension. On one side, the Council’s policy sought to protect existing business operations and provide for future expansion of the business and commercial precinct ([17]). On the other, the planning scheme supported efficient infrastructure use, housing choice and increased residential densities in and around central Mansfield ([18]). The decision resolved that tension by assessing this site and proposal against both strands of policy, rather than treating either as conclusive.
The Tribunal considered that increased central-area housing would bring new housing forms to Mansfield ([19]). It did not regard the fact that the proposal differed from the town’s more familiar detached dwellings as enough to make it inappropriate. Reusing the existing squash-court building was described as an efficient outcome and as assisting environmental-sustainability policies ([19]). The Tribunal also considered that housing and commercial uses can coexist, noting examples such as business operators living on the same land or residents living above, beside or behind shops ([20]).
The objectors’ concern about fragmentation of commercial centres and “dead spaces” along retail frontages was acknowledged ([21]). However, the Tribunal was not persuaded that this proposal would cause that result. It reasoned that the development would not impede the business growth trend, would create a potential customer base nearby, and would improve the visual amenity of the site through landscaping. It also noted that a small commercial or retail facility might potentially be developed in the deep front setback, subject to parking needs being addressed ([21]). Its conclusion was expressly tied to the information and submissions before it: the Tribunal was not persuaded that this was a circumstance in which housing next to businesses was inappropriate ([22]).
The business-interface issue was treated as genuine, not dismissed. The objectors identified noise from machinery, deliveries and loading, rubbish collection, light spill and dangerous-goods storage as possible sources of conflict ([23]). The Tribunal considered the building’s acoustic qualities, double glazing and use of glass blocks in small northern windows. It also considered an agreement under section 173 as a way of alerting owners and prospective owners to the surrounding commercial setting ([24]). The agreement was not treated as a complete solution to every possible dispute: the Tribunal expressly stated that it would not prevent action under other legislation ([24]). In its view, the measures were reasonable planning requirements, even though they did not provide the objectors with the guarantees they wanted ([25]).
For laneway access, the Tribunal considered both the operational setting and the proposed layout. It found that the asphalt area was wider than the easement, measuring about 9.26 metres when adjoining private land was included, and that more than 9 metres would remain clear of balconies ([27]). The Tribunal accepted that truck turning arrangements could change and that drivers might have to adapt ([28]). It also noted that the landowner could erect a fence along the easement boundary, potentially producing a narrower circulation area than the proposal ([28]). During construction, the Tribunal considered a management plan a practical means of addressing access concerns. It acknowledged the objectors’ concerns about enforcement but concluded that a plan would provide greater comfort than having no plan ([30]).
The internal-amenity analysis was similarly specific. The Tribunal considered the orientation of the units, windows facing the businesses, cooking smells and other emissions, the proposed glazing, traffic noise, balcony space and the entry to Unit 4 ([32]–[35]). It found that the orientation and glass blocks helped manage the northern interface, and that the acoustic qualities of the building and double glazing would help reduce disturbance from traffic. It noted that Unit 4’s balcony just met the stated eight-square-metre test, while Units 1 and 2 had larger balconies ([33]). For parking, six spaces were proposed and the Tribunal found this met the Clause 55 standard. It noted that four units did not trigger a requirement for on-site visitor spaces ([36]).
This is a VCAT planning decision applying the Mansfield Planning Scheme to a particular permit application. The judgment does not announce that residential use is generally permissible in all Business 1 Zones, nor does it purport to alter the scheme’s requirements. Rather, it explains how the Tribunal weighed the scheme’s competing policy directions in this case: protecting business operations and growth while supporting increased housing density in central Mansfield ([17]–[22]).
The “before” position described in the reasons was the Council’s decision to grant a permit, subject to conditions, and the objectors’ request for review of that decision ([1]). The Tribunal’s “after” position was a varied permit decision. It retained the permit outcome but revised two conditions. Condition 3 was replaced by a section 173 agreement condition concerning purchaser and tenant awareness of surrounding commercial activity. Condition 10 was replaced by a Construction Management Plan condition (Order).
The decision also draws an important limit around the section 173 condition. The Tribunal considered it a reasonable planning requirement, but expressly said that such an agreement did not preclude actions under other legislation ([24]). Accordingly, the decision should not be read as saying that an agreement of this kind removes all possible legal obligations or disputes between residents and neighbouring businesses. The judgment describes a planning response to a land-use interface, not a general immunity for business operators.
The reasons identify the relevant provisions as including section 82 and section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Business 1 Zone, Clause 55, Clause 65, and specified State and Local Planning Policy Framework provisions ([12], [15]). The judgment does not set out the full text of those provisions. It therefore supports an account of how the Tribunal applied them in this dispute, but not a comprehensive statement of their operation in other cases.
At [19], the Tribunal said: “That the housing form proposed here is new, does not mean that it is inappropriate or inconsistent when giving weight to the policies set out in the Mansfield Planning Scheme.” In plain English, an unfamiliar type of housing is not automatically unacceptable. Its fit must be assessed against the planning scheme’s policies and the circumstances of the site.
At [20], it stated that “commercial, retail and residential activities can coexist”. This is not a finding that every combination of uses will work. The surrounding context and the proposal’s effects remained relevant. The passage explains why residential use in a commercial area was not, by itself, a sufficient reason to refuse this application.
At [24], the Tribunal said that section 173 agreements “do not preclude actions under other legislation” but can be “a reasonable requirement in terms of a planning permit”. In plain terms, the agreement could communicate the commercial setting to future purchasers and tenants, but it did not cancel or prevent rights and obligations arising under other laws.
At [30], the Tribunal considered that a construction management plan would provide “a greater level of comfort to users of the laneway” than no plan. The point was practical: conditions governing site fencing, access and construction logistics could address some concerns while work was under way. The Tribunal did not say that such a plan eliminates all construction impacts.
Finally, at [37], the Tribunal concluded that “an acceptable outcome is achieved”. That conclusion followed its consideration of the particular proposal and the identified planning issues. It should be understood as the result of that application, rather than a broad rule about all proposals for dwellings in commercial zones.
The decision is most relevant as a comparison where a permit application proposes residential use or development within a commercial zone, particularly where planning policies support both commercial activity and central-area housing. The salient factual features here were a site in a Business 1 Zone, a town-centre context, an existing building capable of residential reuse, nearby businesses and a planning framework that supported increased residential density ([2]–[6], [17]–[21]).
It may also be a useful factual comparator where objectors raise potential amenity conflicts between residents and businesses. In this case, the identified concerns included noise, deliveries, loading, rubbish, light spill, fumes and cooking smells ([23], [32]). The Tribunal relied on specific design and condition responses, including the existing building structure, double glazing, glass blocks and an agreement drawing attention to surrounding businesses ([24], [32], [35]). A case with materially different building design, emissions, operating context or proposed conditions may not be comparable on those points.
The laneway reasoning may be relevant where development adjoins access used for deliveries or by neighbouring businesses. The Tribunal examined the dimensions of the access area, the easement, the possibility of changed turning arrangements and the effects of construction ([26]–[30]). It also imposed a management-plan condition tailored to those issues.
The judgment offers less support as a direct comparator where the planning scheme, zone provisions, policy settings or site context differ. It does not state that a particular number of dwellings, parking spaces or balcony dimensions will be acceptable in another municipality. It records the Tribunal’s application of the Mansfield Planning Scheme and the evidence presented in this proceeding.
The judgment provided for analysis contains no later judicial or tribunal decisions discussing Lines v Mansfield SC. It also contains no citations to other cases. On this source alone, it is not possible to say whether later courts or tribunals followed, distinguished, applied or criticised the decision.
The decision’s reasoning can be described from its own terms: it undertook a site-specific planning assessment and made an order under the relevant permit-review process. The supplied text does not establish the decision’s later treatment, the extent to which other decision-makers have relied on it, or whether any later authority has qualified its reasoning. Those questions would require sources beyond this judgment.
The reasons do not reproduce the full statutory text or full provisions of the Mansfield Planning Scheme. They identify the provisions considered, but do not provide enough material to explain every requirement or how the Tribunal’s interpretation compares with later versions of the scheme ([12], [15]). Any account of the decision’s broader significance therefore depends on the planning controls applicable to the relevant date and the precise wording of the scheme in another matter.
The judgment also leaves the practical operation of the section 173 agreement to its terms. It records that the agreement was to require purchaser and tenant clauses drawing attention to commercial uses and the zoning, and to address complaints about reasonable business activities operating within the law (Order). At [24], the Tribunal said the agreement would not preclude action under other legislation. The decision does not examine the detailed drafting or later enforcement of such an agreement.
Likewise, the Tribunal imposed a construction management plan condition but did not decide how disputes over implementation or compliance would be resolved. It observed that the objectors had concerns about enforcement and concluded that the plan would provide greater comfort than its absence ([30]). The order specifies subjects the plan must address, but the judgment does not report subsequent construction impacts or compliance.
Finally, the decision does not determine how the proposal would affect later business expansion or future complaints in practice. It records the Tribunal’s assessment that the proposal would not impede the business-growth trend and that the relevant planning conditions were reasonable ([21], [25]). The judgment is therefore most informative as a reasoned example of balancing planning policies and site-specific impacts, not as evidence of what occurred after the permit was issued.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.
Application under s. 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Mansfield Planning Scheme; Business 1 Zone; Impacts on Existing Businesses; Compatibility with Business 1 Zone; Impacts on Laneway/Access; Construction Impacts.
The decision of the Responsible Authority in permit application no. P0074/03 is varied. A permit is granted and is directed to be issued. The permit relates to the land at No. 1 Chenery Street, Mansfield. The permit will allow the use and development of the land for four dwellings, in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions set out in the Notice of Decision issued by the Responsible Authority on 18 June 2003, with the following conditions varied:
s Condition 3 is deleted and replaced with the following:
Before the residential use starts or before any subdivision of the land occurs, the owner of the land must enter into an agreement with the Responsible Authority pursuant to section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide that all purchasers or tenants of units must have a clause inserted into their contract of sale or lease:
* drawing attention to the commercial and retail uses around site
* referring to the Business 1 zoning of the site and adjoining land.
* requiring purchasers and tenants to agree to not make complaints against the reasonable business, commercial and industrial activities in the surrounding area when operating within the law as applying to these uses.
A memorandum of the Agreement is to be entered on title and the cost of the preparation and execution of the Agreement and entry of the memorandum on title is to paid by the owner.
s Condition 10 is deleted and replaced with the following:
Prior to the commencement of development on the site (including any demolition and material removal) the applicant must submit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority a Construction Management Plan. The plan must address, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Fencing to contain litter, restrict vehicle access to one point and to restrict unauthorised access to the site, while ensuring areas shown as easements on title remain available to those with entitlements to the easement.
c. Delivery and unloading points and expected frequency.
e. A liaison officer for contact by residents and the Responsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced.
Once approved, the Construction Management Plan will be endorsed and form part of this permit.
Ms E Hogan appeared on behalf of the Applicants for Review. She presented written and oral submissions.
Mr M Woodward appeared on behalf of the Responsible Authority. He presented written and oral submissions.
Mr P Dalton appeared on behalf of the Respondents. He presented written and oral submissions.
A number of plans, photographs and other documents were tendered to the Tribunal. All of the material presented is retained on file and all submissions have been taken into consideration. The parties were advised at the commencement of the Hearing that the subject site and locality were inspected by the Tribunal prior to the Hearing. The site and locality were revisited at the conclusion of the Hearing.
1. This Application is made under Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("the Act") by Mr S Lines and others seeking review of a decision by the Mansfield Shire Council ("the Council") to determine to grant a permit in permit application no. P0074/03. A Notice of Decision was issued on 18 June 2003. The Application for Review was lodged on 7 July 2003.
2. The subject site is located on the west side of Chenery Street, close to the intersection with High Street. The land has a frontage of 24.14 metres and a area of around 655 square metres. There are several easements including a party wall to the northern boundary, an access to the rear of shops fronting High Street and associated with an accessway ("laneway") to the south.
3. The site is occupied by a former squash court and associated car spaces. The building has a height of 7.48 metres and is setback on the site with a deep front setback of some 10.8 metres. One squash court remains in operation while the building has otherwise been altered from that former use.
4. The shops to the north of the site, fronting High Street, are single storey and comprise a real estate agent and milk bar. To the west are three single storey premises that are to the rear of another commercial business fronting High Street. These three businesses are accessed via the laneway to the south of the review site, via the business to the north or possibly via a narrow pedestrian space to the west of the milk bar.
5. To the south of the review site is a furniture showroom and warehouse. The laneway is used as a loading and delivery point, with the main customer parking area to the west of the showroom. The premises is currently being expanded in a new structure further to the south.
6. To the east of the site is a petrol station and car wash, on the corner with High Street. There is a tyre service to the south, then several dwellings.
7. Chenery Street and High Street are both main roads.
8. The proposal involves the reuse of the existing squash court structure for the development of four dwellings. Two units would comprise two bedrooms and two would contain three bedrooms. Each dwelling is proposed to be two storey, contained within the shell of the existing squash courts. The only additions are balconies and a separate carport.
9. Each unit is proposed to be provided with a balcony at the upper level, associated with the main living areas. Bedrooms would be at the lower level. Light-wells service all units.
10. The building would be finished in render. New windows to the north, on the first floor, would be of glass block. Other windows would be double-glazed, as proposed by way of a condition in the Notice of Decision.
11. Six car spaces would be provided, accessed via the existing laneway to the south of the site. Four spaces would be partly beneath new balconies and two spaces would be sited within a carport. The front setback area would be landscaped with a 1.5 metre high fence.
12. The subject site is within a Business 1 Zone pursuant to the provisions of Clause 34.01 of the Mansfield Planning Scheme ("the Scheme"). A permit is required to use and develop the review site for four dwellings, given that the frontage to the street would be wider than 2 metres. The provisions of Clause 55 are relevant to an assessment, in addition to the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks and local policies.
14. Chenery Street and High Street are both within a Road 1 Zone.
15. A number of other Clauses of the Scheme are relevant to this Application, and have been considered by the Tribunal, including:
s State Planning Policy Framework - Clauses 15, 16, 17 and 19.
s Local Planning Policy Framework - Clause 21 (Municipal Strategic Statement, notably Clauses 21.07 and 21.08) and Clause 22.13 (Retail and Commercial Development Policy).
16. I have considered the submissions presented, assisted by my inspections, having regard to the applicable planning policies and objectives of the Mansfield Planning Scheme. I do not recite the details of the submissions as the documentary materials are retained on file. Instead, I focus on the key issues raised by Ms Hogan, being:
s the principle of utilising land within the Business 1 Zone for residential purposes.
s whether the proposal would unreasonably impact on the operation of the existing businesses.
s whether the proposal would impede the use of the laneway or impact on existing storage areas.
s whether an acceptable level of internal amenity is achieved for the occupants of the units.
s whether the proposal would have unreasonable impacts on public parking.
Is Residential an Appropriate Use in the Business 1 Zone?
17. The subject site is located within a Business 1 Zone, at some distance from the closest residential zone. There are a number of dwellings in the immediate area, notably south along Chenery Street, and I understand that the Council has identified a large Business 1 Zone to provide for the long term expansion of the business and commercial precinct. There is no doubt that the protection of existing business operations and their future growth is an important component of the Council's policy, as set out at Clause 21.08 of the Mansfield Planning Scheme.
18. There are, however, other policy themes that are directly relevant to this Application. The Council has also adopted a policy that seeks to ensure the efficient use of infrastructure and provide a greater choice in housing options. One of the strategies to implement these and other objectives, is to increase residential densities in and around the central area of Mansfield (Clauses 21.07 and 22.09).
19. Increasing residential densities in the central area will produce new housing forms that will differ from the form of detached dwellings and more spacious landscaped allotments that can currently be viewed in Mansfield. That is an obvious outcome associated with implementation of the Council's policies. Put differently, the successful implementation of the Council's planning agenda and stated direction for the municipality will bring change to the centre of Mansfield. That the housing form proposed here is new, does not mean that it is inappropriate or inconsistent when giving weight to the policies set out in the Mansfield Planning Scheme. Recycling an existing building for residential use may be more common in larger townships or parts of Melbourne, but given the position of the site relative to the commercial precinct, it is not a development form that in unacceptable. Recycling the building is an efficient outcome that assists the achievement of other policies relating to environmentally sustainable development (Clauses 19.03 and 55).
20. Certainly, it would not be desirable for a commercial precinct to be taken up entirely by residential uses. However, commercial, retail and residential activities can coexist, as is evident in many townships where business operators reside on the same land or where others live in a dwelling above, next to, or behind a shop.
21. The Applicants fairly refer to the potential for non-business related uses to fragment commercial centres. The creation of "dead spaces" along retail frontages is a typically poor outcome that is sought to be avoided in planning policy. This proposal would not contribute to the retail or commercial activity nearby, but I am not persuaded that should cause it to be rejected. There may be strong business growth in the town at present, but this proposal would not impede that trend. It would add a potential customer base in close proximity to facilities. Moreover, the landscaped setting would assist to improve the visual amenity of the land and it appears that there is no reason why a small retail or commercial facility could not potentially be developed within the deep front setback area, assuming parking needs can be addressed.
22. While there may well be circumstances where new housing abutting existing businesses is not appropriate, I am not persuaded on the information and submissions presented that is the case here.
23. Ms Hogan described the context of the proposed development as four units being encircled by 10 businesses. She expressed concern about the potential for occupants of the proposed development to place pressures on existing businesses, given noise associated with those businesses, such as machinery, deliveries and loading (at various times of the day and night), rubbish collection, light spill, and storage of dangerous goods (eg. petrol). While noting the proposal in the Notice of Decision for a Section 173 agreement, she submitted that this would not give adequate protection to adjacent businesses and would not prevent complaints being made under other legislation. I note that in responding to these submissions, Mr Woodward suggested that the Section 173 agreement could be extended to lease agreements and that was not opposed by Mr Dalton. Mr Dalton also suggested a minor wording change to the condition to deal with timing in the event of subdivision.
24. The potential for conflicts between residential and non-residential uses is a valid concern on the part of existing business operators. In this case, the re-use of the existing building provides a structure with good acoustic qualities, supplemented by double glazing as well as the use of glass blocks to the small windows in the north façade to protect against smells and other emissions. A Section 173 agreement provides an additional measure of comfort, alerting any owner or prospective owner to the setting of the land. The ability to include awareness clauses in leases is a further option as suggested by the Council. While such agreements do not preclude actions under other legislation, they are a reasonable requirement in terms of a planning permit. There would be likely to be less issue if persons are resident on the subject site for only short periods of time or part-time.
25. The Applicants are not provided with the guarantees that they would prefer, but I find that the conditions proposed by the Responsible Authority are reasonable. The Applicants are, of course, bound by other legislation in relation to their own operations in any event, regardless of whether or not residents reside close by. Dependent upon their current status, the businesses may not require planning permits to expand their hours of operation or, if a permit is required, exemption provisions in the Business 1 Zone may apply.
Impact on the Use of the Laneway and Business Storage Areas
26. I understand that existing business to the south of the review site utilises a laneway (easement) for the loading and delivery of goods. The same lane provides the only vehicle access to the small shops/businesses to the west of the review site.
27. The proposal will maintain the existing asphalt area, which is wider than the easement. The width is some 9.26 metres including that on private land unaffected by the easement. That is generous and will enable truck and car access, including sightlines to the properties to the west (as the existing boundary lattice fence is proposed to be retained). There would be an area of over 9 metres clear of any balconies.
28. The development may impact on current arrangements whereby as larger trucks may use some of the parking area adjacent to the squash courts for turning, but the change is a circumstance that drivers would need to adapt to. The property owner would be entitled to erect a fence along the boundary of the easement today, creating a narrower circulation space than that proposed by the current design.
29. Shops to the north of the review site are using part of an easement to their south, or along the northern site boundary, for storage. The proposal has also accommodated this space, albeit there may be questionable lawful entitlement to it for storage purposes.
30. A related matter is the potential for access to be obstructed during construction on the site. I asked Ms Hogan whether her clients would support a permit condition requiring a construction management plan, focussed on retaining clear access to the lane. She said that her clients had concerns about the ability to enforce such a plan. Mr Dalton indicated that his client would support such a condition and would agree to site fencing being modified to allow for laneway access and access to the storage area, instead of the whole site being fenced during constructed as required by Condition 10. While I note Ms Hogan's concern about enforcement, I consider that a construction management plan would give a greater level of comfort to users of the laneway than is the case if such a plan was absent. I intend including it as a condition, and deleting Condition 10, so that details of site fencing become part of the construction management plan.
31. Ms Hogan was critical of the level of internal amenity that may be achieved for occupants of the proposed development.
32. One of the main concerns she referred related to noise and fumes associated with the existing businesses to the north (including cooking smells). That is a reasonable concern, although the orientation of units to the east and south minimises the potential for conflict, as does the use of glass blocks rather than openable windows for daylight in the northern elevation. I am satisfied that the interface is properly dealt with. I cannot include a condition requiring the relocation of the flue on an adjacent site, although I record the offer made by Mr Dalton for the height of the flue to be reviewed and possibly increased above the height of the party wall (at the permit applicant's expense).
33. A further concern raised by Ms Hogan was the adequacy of open space and in particular, reliance on balconies as the only private open space. While I understand that most dwellings in Mansfield probably have more open space than a balcony, the areas provided meet the tests of Clause 55. As I have indicated before, the Council's policies are likely to see the introduction of new housing forms and Clause 55 provides a basis for assessment and a decision as to whether an acceptable level of internal amenity is provided. Unit 4 is the only dwelling with a balcony that just meets the test of 8 square metres, with Units 1 and 2 having 32 and 43 square metres respectively.
34. The amenity of the front entry to Unit 4 was also questioned by Ms Hogan given the location of the storage area to the rear of the shops fronting High Street. The main entry would be via a path centrally along the site frontage, well clear of the storage area, and stairs would separate the store from the path leading to the car parking area. The unit has a good sense of address.
35. There is no doubt that the site is close to a busy intersection, as noted by Ms Hogan. However, the acoustic qualities of the building as well as double glazing to windows would assist to minimise the extent to which occupants may be disturbed by traffic noise.
36. Ms Hogan submitted that the proposal would impact on the availability of on-street parking. The development provides six on-site car spaces, which meets the standard of Clause 55. There is no requirement for on-site visitor car spaces given that the development only involves four units. Residents or their visitors may park on-street from time to time, but that is not a reason to reject the proposal. The design provides for the usual parking needs of occupants and occupants would be entitled to park in public spaces, as anyone else may.
37. The proposal is well considered and the design response has taken into account the sensitivities of the subject site including the proximity of existing businesses. New residential development opportunities in Mansfield's central area are supported by planning policy and the form of development proposal is acceptable given the circumstances of the site and the context of the land. While the Applicants have genuine concerns about the proposal, for the above reasons, I am persuaded that an acceptable outcome is achieved. I will therefore order that a permit issue generally in accordance with the conditions set out in the Notice of Decision, with some variations.
Lines
Mansfield SC [2003] VCAT 1880
The Council’s decision in permit application P0074/03 was varied. A permit was directed to issue for use and development of No. 1 Chenery Street for four dwellings, in accordance with endorsed plans and the Council’s conditions, except that Condition 3 was replaced with a section 173 agreement condition addressing awareness of surrounding business activity, and Condition 10 was replaced with a construction management plan condition.