What guidance is provided by the planning policy framework?

1. In this section we assess the compliance of the proposal with the State and local planning policies in the Scheme.
2. The State planning policy framework generally encourages Melbourne to become a more compact city by accommodating approximately half of its forecast new households within the established metropolitan area, and to reduce the proportion of new households that are to be accommodated in new suburbs on its fringes. It is intended that Melbourne's urban expansion into areas that are presently non urban is to be limited. A more compact metropolitan area would make better use of the physical and community infrastructure already available in urban areas, particularly public transport and provide a wider range of housing to meet changing housing needs.
3. Activity centres are identified as the preferred locations for more intensive commercial and residential development. Intensive use and development is encouraged to locate into activity centres so they can be highly accessible and to facilitate synergies amongst businesses. Commercial developments outside activity centres, including ribbon development along highways, are generally discouraged.
4. Policy encourages the environment, including remnant vegetation, waterways and significant landscapes, to be protected from inappropriate development. Land uses along main roads should be managed so development does not interfere or detract from the efficient operation of the main road network.
5. We also have to consider the local planning policy framework, the Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Regional Strategy Plan 1996 and Council's Vision 2020 Community Plan. We find the following policy directions to be relevant:
   • The region is highly important for Victoria and nationally.
   • The beauty of its landscapes and intrinsic value of its vegetation are the region's outstanding features and these should be maintained.
   • Yarra Ranges has both urban and rural roles. Tecoma is included in the Foothills Residential Area that is characterised as a residential area comprising larger lots with an extensive tree canopy. These areas are distinguished from the Shire's rural areas.
   • Commercial centres are the preferred locations for retail and business activities, particularly restaurants. Commercial centres should provide a range of retail and business facilities that meet the needs of local residents and tourists visiting the municipality.
   • Signage should achieve identification of businesses and not detract from the streetscape.
   • Restaurants should be designed to protect the amenity of residents and the environmental qualities of an area.
6. We are satisfied that this proposal is generally consistent with the entirety of the State and local planning policy framework. We find that it complies with the following specific policy directions:
   • The development before us is a modest sized convenience restaurant located in a Business 1 Zone and within an established activity centre.
   • It is to be located within the 'urban corridor' between Ferntree Gully and Belgrave identified in the policy framework rather than the rural areas.
   • It will contribute to the range of services available within an established activity centre. It will also contribute to the consolidation of established centres. It will provide convenience services to both local residents and visitors to the area.
   • It would not contribute to ribbon development along major highways, or propose a standalone restaurant within an area of scenic beauty.
   • It will enable some synergies to arise with other businesses in Tecoma (and the wider region) that would be to their mutual benefit, hence supporting economic outcomes identified in clause 17.
   • It would provide employment opportunities for local people, particularly young people.
   • It would provide a new building of modern contemporary design.

Would the height, massing and appearance of the development fit into the Tecoma commercial centre?

1. In this section we assess the building's fit into Tecoma's commercial streetscape. We also assess the proposed landscaping, fencing and signage.
2. We begin by examining the planning policy framework to identify its urban design directions. We note that the State planning policy framework strongly encourages new built form to be based on a careful analysis of its context. A new development should be respectful of its context and make a positive contribution to the place and the public realm. Replication and mimicry are not encouraged; the new should be distinguishable from the old and make its own contribution to the place. Policy discourages a building to pretend that it is from another period.
3. Clause 21.06 as it relates to commercial centres encourages proper siting and layout to achieve well designed and integrated development. Strategies include:
   • Encourage the siting and design of development to respond to the characteristics of the site and the surrounding area.
   • Design new development to be compatible with the established character and built form or with surrounding commercial development.
   • Minimise the intrusion of traffic associated with the centre into adjoining streets.
4. The setbacks, height, site coverage, design and scale of proposed commercial development should respond to the prevailing built form of the centre. It should protect the amenity of adjoining dwellings by appropriate building design, setbacks and landscaping[3]. A new building should also provide landscaping that fits with the prevailing landscaping in the centre[4].
5. Tecoma is defined within Council's Vision 2020 Community Plan as a street based activity centre. Their preferred character is:

Street based activity centres will be distinctive for their fine grain built form, with ground floor activity fronting traditional streets and pedestrian activity concentrated along these streets. A backdrop of vegetation will be visible behind the centre and views of the surrounding hills will be seen from numerous vantage points in public places.

1. The document includes design guidelines relating to matters such as weather protection, continuous frontages, glazing, materials and fine grain facades. We note that this document is outside the Scheme and it has very limited weight in this matter.
2. We think that the general context of planning policy, the absence of planning overlays that specify design requirements, and the site's location at the edge of the commercial centre on a large lot provides considerable flexibility to design a building that is different and stands apart from the fine grain commercial core.
3. Mr Williams and other submitters pressed us to conclude that Tecoma has a particular character and ambience that distinguishes it from the established suburbs to the west of Ferntree Gully. The crucial difference put to us is the presence of the treed canopy in long distant views of the nearby hills, and the extensive tree canopy through the nearby residential suburb that abuts the Tecoma commercial centre.
4. We concur with Mr Williams that the residential areas surrounding the Tecoma commercial centre have a character distinctly different to most of suburban Melbourne. In our view, this character is not the one to guide our assessment of this proposal. It is the character of the commercial centre along Burwood Highway that is the context into which this development should respectfully respond and fit.
5. Our assessment of the centre's context and prevailing form is that it comprises buildings that are single storey to Burwood Highway and one and two storeys at their rear. The front facades are generally built to the front title boundary. Roofs are pitched. Car parking is provided to the rear of the properties. Whilst the frontages of each business may be relatively small, the centre comprises blocks of solid built form that extend unbroken from one street corner to the next. There is considerable advertising, much of it eclectic in form and style. Materials and colours are 'earthy' greens and browns. Weather protection is provided by verandahs over most of the footpath, supported by posts. There is limited landscaping and street furniture along the footpath. The prevailing built form is modest in style and architectural merit.
6. The responsible authority accepted in its submissions that the proposed height of the convenience restaurant would be acceptable and the canopies would provide weather protection and modulation to the front façade. Mr Radisich concurred and opined that it would comprise 'a good standard of architecture'.
7. However, the responsible authority and many residents considered that the scale, massing and design of the development fail to fit its context. The residents submitted that the design fails to respect the character of the centre, as detailed in Ms Dealy's submission. They were critical of the width of the frontage, the flat roof, blank walls on the side elevations, the materials and its orientation to the rear.
8. We are not persuaded that the massing, height and form of the building would be so out of character with the commercial centre to be incongruous or uncomfortable. We find that the proposed building is respectful of the prevailing built form, without resorting to replication and mimicry. We consider that whilst it would have a relatively wide frontage of 25 metres to Burwood Highway, this would be acceptable, as the centre comprises blocks of continuous built form much longer than this one building. The front façade of this building would have sufficient articulation and variance to avoid it being seen as a box. We consider that its mass would be further articulated by a palette of various materials, colours and glazing. It is also at the edge of the commercial centre and hence does not intrude into or break up the fine grain frontages seen within the commercial core. It stands separate from the commercial core, and is within an area that contains relatively robust buildings. It has sufficient features for it to be part of the commercial core, but it can be distinguished from it.
9. The building has been sited close to the street frontage to activate the street. A small setback facilitates pedestrian access at grades suitable for people with limited mobility. These setbacks are consistent with the existing buildings on the land and at No.1527 Burwood Highway to the west. The proposed setback provides some landscaping opportunities to enhance the public realm. The setback and the entry and glazing in the front façade allow surveillance between the street and the building's interior, promoting a sense of safety and connection. This would be enhanced by the location of the play area to the building's east side, with views to the street.
10. The site coverage would be no greater than the existing buildings and is very low for a commercial site. The location of car parking to the rear is consistent with other developments within the centre and with planning policy.
11. We agree with submissions that the façade to Burwood Highway can be further improved to strengthen its integration with the established core and to better respond to local policy.
12. The proposed planters impede a visual connection between the public realm and the entry to McDonald's. We think they should be removed as far as possible, and the 3 metre setback designed with paving and materials that would visually integrate that area with the public footpath.
13. We generally support the proposed canopy which comprises three distinct sections at slightly different heights. This variance in the horizontal lines reflects the rise in the land along the frontage and emphasises the entry to the convenience restaurant. We think its separation into three sections also prevents the canopy being an unduly imposing structure in the streetscape. However we think that it is too large and it should be modified. We concur with the residents that with a width of 5.5 metres it is excessive and dominant. We think that its width to a south facing façade is likely to make that entry dark and uninviting. We propose that the canopy be reduced to a width of 3 metres and it should comprise a more muted colour consistent with the ochres, browns or greens of the Hills.
14. We note that the canopy is to be supported by columns spaced at 3 metre intervals. We support this built form as it provides a visual link to the commercial core. The vertical columns should be emphasised through colour and style so they balance the width of the building by providing dominant vertical lines to the street. The fine spacing of the columns would also provide another reference to the commercial centre to the east.
15. The proposed glazing in the south elevation would be a smaller proportion of its façade than in the frontages east of Sandells Road. We accept that this reflects the internal design of public amenities and storage areas. The storage facilities are integrated with the unloading and food preparation areas and there is little scope to change these. We also think there is limited scope to relocate the public amenities, as any changes would compromise the integration of the dining area, the McCafe area and the outdoor terrace. We are unable to identify opportunities for additional glazing in the south façade without requiring a substantial reconfiguration of the internal floor plan, which we consider would be unreasonable to achieve a relatively limited improvement.
16. Removing the planters, providing paving integrated with the public footpath and reducing the canopy will better integrate the south façade with the street and lessen the perception that it is a standalone building disconnected from the _'main str_eet'.
17. With regard to the blank side elevations, we consider that such an outcome is inevitable. A building that has to provide loading and storage areas, as well as staff training and staff change areas will necessarily have blank facades. These will usually be to a side or rear elevation. Whilst we would prefer the loading and terrace areas be swapped, so the edge to the driveway is more active, we consider this to be impractical due to the operation of the storage/delivery areas.
18. Nevertheless, we concur with Mr McGurn and the residents that the west elevation can be improved with the application of alternate materials such as timber that would break up its uniformity and visual bulk.
19. We think in time the blank wall to the east will eventually be obscured by a building on the presently vacant adjoining lot and this elevation will not form part of the public realm. Until this happens the proposed landscaping and outdoor terrace and play area activate this elevation and make it acceptable.
20. The building was criticised for having a flat roof, as this would be different from the triangular, pitched roofs in the commercial centre. We consider that requiring this building to have a pitched roof, or a roof with a row of smaller pitched forms would constitute mimicry that does a disservice to the prevailing Tecoma commercial core and this development. It would not make it blend in or better integrated. We consider it would be recognised as being an imitation, and it would be rightly criticised. We think its simple, rectilinear forms provide visual references to the commercial core, but also allow it to be identified as a new, different place.
21. We also note that the flat roof is appropriate to retain views from Burwood Highway to the National Park and the treed hills that provide the backdrop to the town. We think a low, flat built form that retains these iconic views is more important than replicating the built form of the existing shops, particularly as they have no recognised architectural significance.
22. Some submitters considered that at 8.8 metres the height of the north (rear) facade would be excessive as it would be considerably greater than the rear elevation of the existing buildings with their pitched roofs.
23. We are satisfied that the north façade would have limited visual presence to the areas to its north. The building would be between 32 metres and 66 metres from adjoining dwellings. Views by the immediate neighbours of the north elevation would be screened by the proposed acoustic fence and the existing and proposed landscaping. With regard to views from dwellinsg more distant from the site, we consider that the existing dense tree canopy in the properties and street reserves to the north will substantially screen views of the proposed building. We consider it would have little visibility from properties to its north, particularly from Sandells Road, Alec Street or Sophia Grove. The north façade is also articulated and variable and hence would be perceived as a series of built forms rather than one sheer, unbroken façade.
24. We think it will be a minimal and small presence when viewed from the public realm and within the car park. However, we think that the vertical blades coloured yellow would be unduly prominent and the colour should be more muted.
25. We concur with the residents that some additional glazing could be included at the western end of the north elevation. We consider the additional glazing could be provided above the internal stairs. Such glazing would also improve the internal amenity of the stairwell, food preparation areas and food collection booth.
26. Overall we think that this building would have sufficient design cues to be a respectful fit into the streetscape of the commercial centre. With some further modifications to the Burwood Highway façade and limited changes to the west and north elevations, we find that its built form would fit well into the streetscape and that it generally complies with planning policy.

Would the landscaping and fencing be a suitable interface to dwellings?

1. Mr Galbraith reviewed the existing vegetation. He found that much of the existing vegetation has limited retention value. The Acacia melanoxylon (Blackwoods) on the east and north boundaries can be retained. The Liquid Amber in the centre of the site is in poor health, but he concluded that it could be retained.
2. A Landscape Concept Plan has been prepared for the development. It accords with Mr Galbraith's recommendations and proposes to retain most of the Blackwoods and the Liquid Amber tree.
3. The Liquid Amber is located in the primary pedestrian pathway between the car park and the stairs to the restaurant. It would be subject to extensive foot traffic and would have seating close to the trunk.
4. We are concerned that the Liquid Amber is in poor health and the tree root zone would be subject to substantial wear and compression. We acknowledge that in the short term it is preferable to retain a tree that is tall and has some presence within the site. However, we think that it is preferable that high quality landscaping be implemented that will serve the development and community for some time.
5. Consequently we think it is preferable that the Liquid Amber be replaced with a native canopy tree that will prosper in this robust environment and also complement the landscaping generally seen in the centre and in the abutting residential precinct to the north. We are also concerned that the tree root zone be fully protected and the pedestrian traffic be guided to prevent people walking across that area.
6. The Blackwoods on the northern and eastern boundaries would be retained and complemented by additional Blackwoods and Lightwoods. These would grow to 12 metres and 5 metres respectively, which we consider would provide adequate screening from views to the north. A Eucalyptus Meliodora is to be located at the northeast corner of the site adjacent to No.2/89 Sandells Road and this would also provide additional screening from the north.
7. Landscaping along the boundary to Dwelling 2/89 Sandells Road would comprise Lightwoods within a 2 metre wide garden bed. The landscaping would be adjacent to a 2.4 metre fence. The base of the fence would be approximately 0.5 metre below the level of the car parking bays.
8. We are satisfied that the landscaping adjacent to No.2/89 Sandells Road would provide considerable screening of views from that adjoining dwelling. It would also screen views of the fence from the car park. We regard the landscaping along this boundary as satisfactory.
9. The Landscape Concept Plan also proposes an 'avenue' of seven Melia azederach 'elite (White Cedars) along the drive through queue. These would be planted at a height of 2.5 metres and grow to approximately 10 metres height. They would be complemented by ground level grasses.
10. The drive through and the car park would be a robust environment. The trees will be close to passing vehicles. We are not confident that relatively large trees would be successful. It is our view that the landscaping plan should include trees and medium height vegetation that would have a tall and slender canopy to minimise damage from passing vehicles. They also need to be proven to prosper in narrow garden beds.
11. Tree 2 is shown on the landscape plan as being retained and complemented by two eucalyptus radiata. We note that the arborist categorised it as being in poor condition and recommended that it be removed. We think that the approved landscape plan should include a replacement for tree 2.
12. Ms Elizabeth raised through cross examination of Mr Armstrong whether some of the proposed landscape species would be invasive weeds that could spread into environmentally sensitive areas. The invasion and spread of weeds is a serious issue in this region, and the proposed landscaping should not contribute to this problem. In cross examination, Mr Armstrong emphasised that the species selected in the landscape concept plan have been discussed with the responsible authority and carefully chosen. He opined none of the proposed species would be weed species.
13. We are generally satisfied with the Landscape Concept Plan. We think it appropriate to adopt the usual planning process whereby approval in general is provided, and detailed outstanding matters identified in our decision can be addressed through the approval of amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. We will include a permit condition to specifically require the responsible authority to assess the retention or replacement of the Liquid Amber and tree 2, the inclusion only of species that pose no threat of weed invasion, and to review the species adjacent to the drive through area.

1. It is proposed to erect 31 signs with a total area of 47.7 square metres. A permit is required for the signage as it exceeds a total area of 8 square metres.
2. The responsible authority and the respondents opined that the number of signs and their total area would be excessive. They relied on the evidence of Dr Clark that the signage would generate excessive illumination that would adversely affect the amenity of adjoining and nearby residents. They also opined that the signage would make the convenience restaurant highly visible at night from dwellings in the surrounding residential areas.
3. The residents proposed that the signage could be made more acceptable by the deletion of the larger signs, particularly the flagpoles and banners, the large sign on the north façade, the welcome signage at the entry on the western side and the west facing 'McDonald's'. The permit applicant noted that it had no objection to the north facing wall sign being switched off after 10.00pm.
4. We are guided by the Scheme and by the signage presently within the commercial centre. The site is within a Business 1 zone and the decision guidelines we must apply are set out in clause 52.05. In our view signage in a Business 1 zone is expected to have robust presence and to be seen. It is to do more than merely identify and direct people. This arises from the Business 1 zone being one of 'minimal limitation'[5] and the purpose of signage in such an area is:

to provide for identification and promotion signs and signs that add vitality and colour to business areas[6].

1. Tecoma's commercial centre, including the review site presently has a relatively high level of signage, including many signs above the verandahs of the shops. There is an existing sign (approximately 5 metres by 3 metres) at the entry to the car park. The petrol station opposite has an illuminated pole sign and other signage. Much of the existing signage throughout the commercial centre is eclectic in style and colours, not illuminated and aged. From a streetscape viewpoint, the existing signage within the commercial centre does not provide particular cues or design principles that necessarily guide the size, scale or extent of signage appropriate for the review site.
2. We consider the proposed signage in two parts, the presentation to Burwood Highway, and the signage within the car park and drive through.
3. We think in general the proposed signage to Burwood Highway is of high quality. It is stylish, contemporary and muted. We think much of the signage is relatively understated in size, relative to the height and massing of the elevations.
4. With regard to the decision guidelines at clause 52.05 we find that the signage to Burwood Highway is acceptable as it:
   • Would be consistent with and make a positive contribution to the character of the commercial centre.
   • Would have no impacts or be prominent in important views and vistas from the commercial centre to the backdrop of the hills.
   • Would be proportional and modest given the size of the facades on which it is to be located.
   • Would not have any adverse impacts on road safety.
5. We consider that much of the signage at the rear of the building would have little impact on the Burwood Highway streetscape or traffic safety. We therefore review the signage at the rear of the building in terms of whether it possibly causes adverse amenity impacts on adjoining and nearby properties.
6. We think the acoustic fence and the proposed landscaping would screen much of the signage from the nearby dwellings. With regard to the decision guidelines of clause 52.05 we think the signage within the car park is largely acceptable as it:
   • Is necessary to facilitate the safe and efficient operations of the car park and drive through facility.
   • Would be modest in terms of the area of the car park within which it is to be located.
   • With appropriate baffling, it would not be excessively illuminated so that it would adversely impact on adjoining properties due to screening provided by the acoustic fence and the landscaping.
7. Notwithstanding the above general support for the proposed signage, we concur with the residents that the number of signs should be reduced. There is some duplication of the larger signs and we think the number of signs exceeds the signage generally provided for other commercial premises in Tecoma. We think the following signage should be deleted as it largely duplicates other signs and would add to the extent of night illumination. The signs that we will require to be deleted are:
   • S13 - flagpoles and banners (should be replaced by landscaping).
   • S9D - 2.3metre by 0.7 metre directional sign (could be replaced by smaller non illuminated directional sign).
   • Delete either 9A or 9B (2.3 metres by 0.7 metre) at entry to the access aisle to Burwood Highway as these signs duplicate.
   • Replace Sign S2B on the west elevation with S4B.
   • Delete S4B from the blade on the west elevation.
8. We consider the dimensions and content of sign S4A to be appropriate, however, we consider its colour to be overly prominent. We consider a more muted colour should be employed. Given the height, size and illumination of the large north facing 'McDonald's' sign, we concur with the residents that it would generate a strong illumination into the adjoining residential areas, and we will direct that the illumination be turned off between 10.00pm and 7.00am.
9. With these modifications we consider the proposed signage would comply with the decision guidelines of the Scheme, make a positive contribution to the streetscape and not adversely impact the site's neighbours.

Would the access, parking and loading arrangements be satisfactory?

1. In this section of our reasons we assess the arrangements for vehicle and pedestrian access, parking, disabled parking, loading, internal circulation and bicycle parking. We also consider the integration of the review site with the access and car parking on adjoining commercial sites.

1. We turn firstly to the provision of car parking. The convenience restaurant would provide 56 seats within the dining room, 28 seats in a terrace and 6 seats in the playground (we were advised these would be benches rather than chairs at a table), a total of 90 seats. Clause 52.06 of the Scheme requires this use to provide 0.3 parking spaces per patron. The application plans show parking for 28 vehicles. The Landscape Concept Plan shows parking for 26 vehicles.
2. Mr Hunt submitted that the parking rate should be applied only to the internal seats, generating a demand for 17 spaces. Mr de Young applied the rate to indoor and external seating, but not the 6 seats associated with the play area. He concluded that the restaurant should provide 25 spaces.
3. Both traffic experts opined that the external terrace seating would be likely to be used on more pleasant days, and the number of people inside the restaurant would be correspondingly lower. Hence the actual seating capacity used to estimate car parking should be closer to 56 seats. Mr Hunt also opined that parking surveys of McDonald's restaurants indicate they generate a parking demand of 0.15 to 0.3 car parking spaces per internal seat. Taking the most conservative (highest) demand that the indoor and the terrace areas are both fully occupied, both traffic experts opined that the provision of 26 spaces satisfies the requirements of clause 52.06, and would be consistent with recorded parking demands at other McDonald's restaurants.
4. We accept the applicant's propositions that the seats in the play area would be occupied by people already in the restaurant and would be unlikely to increase the overall demand for car parking spaces. We are also satisfied that the provision of 26 car parking spaces meets the requirements of clause 52.06 of the Scheme. We find that no planning permission is required to waive or reduce the provision of car parking.
5. We also accept the evidence of the traffic experts and the responsible authority that the layout of the internal aisles and car parking spaces complies with clause 52.06 of the Scheme, and no permission is required to vary the design requirements set out in the Scheme. We address the acceptability of the parking arrangements due to the site's slope below.

Would the proposed disabled parking space be acceptable?

1. A parking space for disabled motorists is to be provided at the southwest end of the site, adjacent to the site's entry from Burwood Highway. It would be located adjacent to the north wall of the loading bay.
2. Resident submitters were highly critical of the location and design of this parking space. They opined it would be on a slope that would make it difficult for people with a disability to access their vehicles. Its location close to the site's entry would make entering and leaving the space dangerous as sightlines would be inadequate.
3. The permit applicant and the traffic experts opined that this location is the best option on the site and that it complies with the Scheme and relevant Australian Standards. Importantly it provides convenient access to the restaurant via the path in the 3 metre front setback. Placing the disabled parking space at the north end of the site would require a disabled person(s) to navigate their way up the driveway, or would require lifts or substantial ramps to be included in the rear landscape areas.
4. Revised plans and cross sections were tabled for information towards the completion of the hearing. These plans show the proposed slope of the disabled parking space. It would have a change of grade of 100mm from the north to the south side of the space. The adjoining area into which people would get in and out of vehicles would have a change of grade of another 100mm. We think that this is satisfactory on this site.
5. We concur with residents that reversing from the space into the access aisle would be difficult as sightlines would be obscured by the loading bay wall. Whilst the bay is offset from the wall by 0.5 metre, we agree it would be difficult to see an oncoming northbound vehicle. We think that a splay in the loading bay wall should be provided. We have no difficulty with sightlines to Burwood Highway as a driver would have clear views of vehicles entering the site.
6. We concur with the residents that locating a disabled parking bay on Burwood Highway would not be satisfactory due to the traffic volumes, speed and the narrow width of lanes.
7. We find that whilst the proposed location of the disabled car parking space is less than ideal, it is acceptable as required by the Scheme[7]. In our view it will be level and proximate to an entry to the restaurant via a level pathway. It will also be removed from the more congested areas of the car park, particularly the intersection of the drive through and egress aisle. Its relocation to the northern part of the site would require excessive ramps to provide entry to the restaurant. These would have adverse urban design and landscaping outcomes. It would also place the disabled person in the more congested part of the car park. On balance we are satisfied with the location and design of the disabled car parking space, subject to the provision of appropriate levels and a splay to improve sightlines. These will be required through permit conditions.

Would the vehicle circulation arrangements be acceptable?

1. The responsible authority and many of the respondents considered that the internal drive through arrangements would be unsatisfactory. They were also highly critical of the lack of separation of pedestrians and vehicles.
2. With regard to the internal vehicle circulation, a vehicle would travel the full length of the site, complete a 'U' turn to join the drive through queue or to access car parking spaces. A customer in the drive through line would drive southward for much of the review site to the food order and food collection booths. In so doing, the route crosses the main east-west egress route to Sandells Road. In combination with the slope, it makes for a potentially complex arrangement.
3. We think most drivers would complete the 'U' loop through the northern part of the site and avoid the intersection. It provides access to most of the parking and to the drive through. Inevitably a few drivers will divert through the intersection to leave the site via Sandells Road. This is likely to create an infrequent but significant potential conflict point with drivers in the drive through. We think the potential conflict would be high as we envisage that a relatively high proportion of visitors will not be familiar with the site, and/or will be focussed on navigating the drive through and ordering food. The slope of the site adds to the difficulties.
4. We think several options are available to diminish the potential conflict. Line marking with a chevron, rumble strips or a raised pavement would alert drivers that this is a potential conflict point. Signage to give priority to the access aisle ahead of the drive through is necessary. We think possible conflicts at the intersection of the east-west aisle to Sandells Road and the drive through are likely to be rare as most people will want to travel along the full loop. we also think it will be a low speed environment, and people will be able to avoid accidents. We think that with suitable warning devices, the intersection would be made safe.
5. A longer term option would be to close the east-west access road adjacent to the drive through so all drivers are required to use the 'U' loop through the car park. The access aisle at this point could be used for additional landscaping, carefully installed so it does not minimise the reversing manoeuvres to the loading bay. We acknowledge that this would be contrary to the easements and hence raise it as a suggestion for further consideration rather than imposing it and making complex arrangements between landowners more intricate.

Would the development be safe and convenient for pedestrians?

1. Many respondents were concerned with potential conflict between the pedestrians and vehicles in the car park and in the access aisle adjacent to the loading bay. They submitted that dedicated pedestrian footpaths are required.
2. Mr Hunt and Mr de Young opined that shared pedestrian and vehicle movement areas are common in commercial car parks, including larger supermarkets and convenience restaurants. They opined that dedicated pedestrian paths would be unusual. We concur with the traffic engineers' advice that this is a relatively small car park and it is common for cars and pedestrians to share the car park in convenience restaurants without dedicated footpaths. We note from the Nearmap photographs of eight McDonald's restaurants provided by the permit applicant at the hearing that dedicated pedestrian paths are not provided, even on sites that appear more cramped or complex than this.
3. The two significant vehicle-pedestrian conflict points would arise when people cross the east-west access aisle on their way to the stairs to the outdoor terrace, and when people walk adjacent to the loading bay. We note from the Nearmap photographs that other McDonald's car parks have extensive chevron line marking to guide pedestrians through their car parks to building entries and to alert motorists of those pedestrian movements. We think that line marking should be provided where pedestrians have to cross over the east-west car aisle to access the stairs to the outdoor terrace.
4. With regard to the pedestrian movements adjacent to the loading bay, we note that whilst it would constantly carry vehicles, it is unlikely to be a preferred pedestrian route. Most of the parking is at the rear of the site and people would be most likely to enter and leave the building from the north entry rather than walk some distance to the entry facing Burwood Highway.
5. However we acknowledge that walking to Burwood Highway is likely to be a preferred route for a small proportion of people such as those with prams or people unable to readily access via the stairs to the north. Given there will be some people who will need to walk along the aisle to Burwood Highway, we consider that it is appropriate to ensure their safety and convenience. We note that a footpath is provided on the west side of the car parking on No.1527 Burwood Highway, hence an alternate to using the aisle is available. We also note that most traffic leaving the site is likely to exit via Sandells Road rather than the southbound lane adjacent to the loading bay. We are persuaded that the probability of conflict is very low. Nevertheless, we consider that speed reduction devices should be installed in the southbound lane of the access aisle adjacent to the loading bay to maximise pedestrian safety. However, we do not consider the likely volume of pedestrian or vehicle traffic warrants a dedicated pedestrian path, given that it would require a substantial redesign of the building.
6. We are particularly concerned with pedestrian safety at the Sandells Road exit. We observed that Sandells Road is used by school children and sightlines are constrained. We consider that safety devices should be installed at the Sandells Road exit. However, as the exit is not part of the review site, we cannot lawfully impose conditions on the permit applicant to complete works on another property, without the consent of the owner of that land. We will impose a condition that speed reduction/warning devices be installed at the Sandells Road exit with the consent of the relevant landowner.

Would the slope of the car park and the customer ordering devices be acceptable?

1. The new restaurant would utilise the existing car park largely as it now exists. The permit applicant opined that except for the southern sections of the site, there would be limited cut and fill. The existing slope varies across the site from 1:8 to 1:12 (8.3% to 12.5%), exceeding the Australian Standard of 1:16 or 6.25%. The resident submitters considered that the slope of the car park would make the car park unsafe.
2. The traffic experts and the responsible authority consider that the slope is acceptable. Mr de Young noted that the existing car park has been used without difficulty for a long period. Even if the car park is used by a greater proportion of people (tourists) unused to slopes, Mr de Young and Mr Hunt opined that the slopes would be within acceptable design standards and driving conditions.
3. We acknowledge that the slope is awkward, and some greater care will need to be exercised by drivers and pedestrians. On balance we are satisfied that it would be acceptable fort eh following reasons. Firstly Council's engineers consider it to be satisfactory and they are experienced with numerous similar sites and situations throughout this municipality. Secondly the two experts are satisfied and we are required to give weight to their expertise and responses to cross examination during the hearing. Thirdly, it is an existing site condition, and it is used by many people for a wide range of trips, including for school drop off and pick with young children. If it is particularly dangerous, we think it would not be so used. We think that local residents would be relatively experienced using sloping sites and this car park would present limited difficulties for many local residents. If it did, we are sure we would have been so advised. Finally, reducing the slope would require considerable cut and fill, including substantial retaining walls to its north and east that would present significant visual bulk to these interfaces. We consider that requiring extensive cut and fill within the car park would be a poor urban design outcome and would probably diminish its integration with the adjoining car parks.
4. For the above reasons we are satisfied that the slope of the car park would be acceptable.

1. The loading bay is to be located on the west side of the building. Trucks would enter the site from Burwood Highway, pass the loading bay, and then reverse up the slope into the bay. Trucks would leave the loading bay in a forward direction and exit the site via Sandells Road. Trucks would be limited to 12.8 metre length vehicles, and most would be no more than 8.8 metres. There would be a small number of deliveries using the larger vehicles.
2. We are satisfied that the loading bay meets the requirements of clause 52.07 with respect to clearance height, width, length and area.
3. Many respondents consider the access to the loading bay to be unsatisfactory, due to the slope of the site near Burwood Highway. There were also concerns about the grade within the loading bay.
4. Plans were tabled through the hearing that clarified the slope of the loading bay and its access. It would have an internal gradient of 1:25 where the vehicle stops to be unloaded, and a gradient of 1:10 where the vehicle reverses into the loading area. Both Mr Hunt and Mr de Young thought that the reversing movement into the loading area and the grades would be appropriate. They also thought egress to Sandells Road to be satisfactory. We note that Council's traffic engineers also considered these arrangements to be acceptable. We have no basis to refute their expert opinion.
5. Access and egress to the loading bay from the adjoining aisle would require the trucks to move between the aisle and the reversing lane into the loading bay. We note that the gradient of the loading bay access ramp would be largely consistent with the gradient of the adjoining access aisle, enabling the reversing truck to readily cross over from the aisle to the loading bay area. After carefully examining the cross sections provided by the permit applicant at the hearing, we are satisfied that the truck reversing arrangements would be acceptable.

1. It is proposed to provide 4 bicycle parking spaces for staff and 2 for visitors. This is based on the rate of one space per 25sqm floor area available to the public. This is estimated to be the internal floor area with 56 seats. We are satisfied with this requirement as we consider that for most of the time, patrons will use the indoor seats, or will use the outdoor seats in preference to the indoor seats so the net effect is that the area available to the public is no greater than the internal area. Hence the indoor space is a reasonable estimate of staffing requirements for most of the time the restaurant would be operating.
2. The bicycle parking for staff is proposed to be provided at the rear of the loading bay. We concur with the residents that this would be unsatisfactory and a dedicated storage area should be provided. We think this is best placed under the building accessed from the north elevation. We do not support its provision within the landscape area as we think it would limit the area available for landscaping and detract from its effectiveness.
3. Residents opined that McDonald's employs a relatively high number of young staff who are likely to ride a bicycle to work. It was put that staff showers should be provided to encourage them to ride to work. We are guided by the Planning Scheme. Clause 52.34 provides that employee showers are required only when the number of employee bicycle spaces exceeds five. We are satisfied that from a Planning Scheme perspective no shower facilities are required in this facility.

Should the parking be integrated with No.1527 Burwood Highway?

1. Twelve car parking spaces are provided on the west side of the access road for the use of the five commercial premises on that land. Other spaces are located at the rear of the land. Mr Hall owns the land and was concerned that these spaces, particularly the twelve adjacent to the access aisle, would be extensively used by McDonald's customers.
2. We concur with him and think that it is inevitable that these spaces would be used by customers of this convenience restaurant. Although remote from the entries to the restaurant compared to other parking spaces, they are the first spaces that will be seen by motorists entering the site from Burwood Highway.
3. We are not persuaded this is necessarily a problem or inappropriate. Firstly the proposed restaurant provides sufficient car parking spaces on its own site to meet its own car parking demand. It does not rely on the spaces on Mr Hall's property. Secondly, we think the total number of spaces on the two properties would readily meet the overall parking demand as the much of the customer demand generated by McDonald's would be in the evenings and weekends when most of the five commercial premises on Mt Hall's land would be closed. Furthermore, McDonald's customers would tend to stay for short periods, and spaces would turn over frequently. Mr Hall indicated that the parking spaces on his land presently have a low occupancy rate. The current arrangements appear to operate well.
4. We consider that there is ample parking available to meet the demand generated by Mr Hall's properties. The car parking to the rear of all of the commercial premises to the west of Sandells Road functions as an integrated public car park. This enables it to efficiently meet a range of parking demands and peaks. If each landowner isolates their parking, we think the commercial premises west of Sandells Road as a whole would suffer. We also note that the car park also serves the school drop off and pickup trips and pushing this short term parking demand onto Burwood Highway also would be undesirable. We acknowledge that there is a potential problem and consider it is appropriate to require a car park management plan to enable these matters to be resolved. Mr Hall's concerns regarding car parking are not sufficient to warrant the rejection of this proposal.

How should the shared aisles be managed and maintained?

1. Mr Hall was also concerned with the management and maintenance of the shared aisles and car parking areas. We have noted that the access aisles and car park operate in an integrated manner, and it is in the interests of all the landowners in this section of the Business 1 Zone that they continue to do so. We think that the easements that form part of this application will support and improve this integration.
2. We acknowledge that there are some outstanding management and maintenance issues of the car parks to be resolved. We agree with Mr Hall that McDonald's would be likely to generate considerably more traffic than is generated by the current uses on the review site or by Mr Halls's tenants. The anticipated traffic will include some heavy vehicles.
3. Whilst the fine detail of the management and maintenance arrangements are best resolved between the landowners, we need to be confident that the matters will be addressed. We have identified some pedestrian and traffic safety issues that need to be resolved. We agree there are maintenance cost sharing issues that need to be addressed. We therefore propose to include in the permit a requirement that a parking and traffic management plan be prepared and approved before the development commences. The plan should address the provision and sharing of the costs of upgrading, speed management devices and signage and the sharing of the maintenance burden. As the plan has to be completed before the development commences, we are confident that the permit applicant would use their best endeavours to prepare the plan and attain the consent of the adjoining landowners.

Would the development impose adverse amenity impacts on its neighbours and the commercial centre?

1. We now turn to the possible amenity impacts the development may have on residential and other neighbours, as well as any impacts the development may have on the wider commercial centre. The potential problems raised in submissions concern traffic, public safety, noise, litter, illumination and the hours of operation. We address these matters below.

Would the development create unreasonable traffic congestion or danger?

1. Burwood Highway narrows from two lanes each way west of the review site to one lane each way adjacent to the site. There is some on-street parking in front of the site and in front of the shops east of Sandells Road. McNicol Road and Sandells Road intersect with Burwood Highway to the east of the review site. The intersection with Sandells Road is signalised and has dedicated turn lanes from Burwood Highway.
2. On the Friday evening peak hour Burwood Highway carries in the order of 1,200 vehicles per hour eastbound and 700 vehicles westbound. Sandells Road carries in the order of 240 vehicles, and McNicol Road carries approximately 190 vehicles.
3. The residents provided detailed traffic counts and DVD presentations in support of their contention that at peak periods, particularly in the 4.30pm-6.00pm period, Burwood Highway is heavily congested and eastbound traffic experiences lengthy queues. Multiple turning movements in this section of Burwood Highway compound traffic congestion. At the most congested period it can take approximately 2 minutes to drive between Main Street and Sandells Road. They say the congestion encourages drivers to 'rat-run' through local streets. They say the additional traffic generated by the convenience restaurant in the peak periods would compound to unreasonable levels the existing traffic congestion and safety problems.
4. We heard evidence from two traffic experts. They provided separate and independent advice, based on their own investigations. They agreed that whilst Burwood Highway is congested on a Friday evening, the development would have minimal impacts on the existing traffic levels and travel times adjoining the site for the following reasons.
   1. The commuter peak period on the road network is Friday afternoon 5.15pm to 6.15pm.
   2. Congestion on Burwood Highway is primarily caused by the reduction of two lanes to one lane near Main Street to the east, and by the cycle times of the traffic lights at Sandells Road.
   3. The SIDRA modelling indicates that all intersections near the site presently operate at good to excellent levels.
   4. The convenience restaurant would generate between 162-172 vehicle movements per hour depending on the methodology used.
   5. The peak period for McDonald's would be Friday 6.00pm-7.00pm 'just after' the evening commuter peak period.
   6. Approximately one third of McDonald's visitations are from people already on the road, and a further one quarter of visitations are from people who are already on the road network and who deviate to the restaurant. Hence approximately 35% of trips would be new or additional trips on the road network. This would be between 86 to 109 new trips in the busiest hour.
   7. However, assuming the worst case scenario whereby all trips are additional trips, and the McDonald's peak coincides with the commuter peak, all intersections would continue to operate at very good to excellent levels. The SIDRA modelling predicts that Burwood Highway would operate at a fair level.
   8. Queue lengths in Burwood Highway would increase by one vehicle, and the proposed dedicated turn lane would accommodate the predicted queues.
   9. Traffic on Sandells Road would increase from 229 to 245 vehicles in the peak period, which is acceptable as much of this traffic would be local residential traffic that would travel northward.
   10. There is sufficient capacity on the road network to accommodate the predicted traffic.
   11. The impact on traffic levels and congestion from this proposal would be 'minimal'.
5. Notwithstanding the above conclusion, the traffic experts recommended some mitigation measures to ensure that the adjoining and nearby roads continue to operate at acceptable levels. These measure include:
   • A right turn lane in Burwood Highway capable of accommodating two vehicles.
   • Lengthening the right turn lane from Sandells Road to Burwood Highway.
   • Banning right turns from the site into Burwood Highway.
6. In addition to the traffic experts who appeared at the hearing, the traffic engineers of both the responsible authority and VicRoads had no objection to the proposed development. Vicroads had no objection to the development provided that a dedicated turning lane is installed from Burwood Highway into the site and extended turning lanes are installed in Sandells Road[8]. We also note that having considered a proposal for a large supermarket on the review site that was expected to generate double the traffic per hour compared to this McDonald's restaurant, the Tribunal stated:

It is fair to say that there was general agreement amongst the experts and VicRoads that the traffic experts of the development can be appropriately managed so as to not unacceptably affect either the operation and efficiency of Burwood Highway, or the residential amenity of adjoining streets. Given this general agreement we accept this evidence[9].

1. We participated one evening in the traffic congestion through Tecoma. We acknowledge that the queues through Tecoma are lengthy and the traffic moves slowly. The traffic matter before us is whether this proposal makes the existing traffic congestion worse to a level that would be considered unacceptable, even after the installation of traffic mitigation measures.
2. We appreciate the residents invested significant time and resources into their analysis of the traffic conditions and impacts. On the evidence before us which adopted highly conservative estimates and forecasts, and the we can reach no other conclusion than this proposal would not make the existing congestion so much worse that it becomes unreasonable or unsafe.
3. We are obliged to give significant weight to the advice from the two traffic experts who are subject to extensive and rigorous cross examination. We also give weight to the assessment of the professional road engineers in Council and VicRoads. We acknowledge Ms Ferres Miles' submissions regarding the limitations of SIDRA modelling, but in the absence of expert evidence that reached contrary conclusions, we are persuaded that such modelling provides adequate assessment of the likely impacts of this development, noting that it is the traffic modelling tool frequently used in cases such as this.
4. The proposed development would generate in the order of an additional 110 new trips in the peak hour, or two car movements per minute. The SIDRA modelling (typically used in cases such as this) indicates the nearby intersections would continue to operate at good and very good levels of service.
5. We think that the addition of one hundred or so additional trips per hour on a road that carries 2,000 vehicles per hour will make little difference to its operating conditions. We accept that in Friday afternoon peak period traffic may be more congested. Traffic may take a few more seconds to travel through Tecoma. Drivers may need to exercise a little more care and patience. For all other times, we consider that the traffic generated by the McDonald's restaurant will make very little difference to the operation of Burwood Highway and other roads.
6. Melbourne has experienced significant population growth in the past decade, and in combination with urban consolidation policies, traffic congestion is more noticeable throughout Melbourne. Intensive development is occurring along most of Melbourne's main roads. Existing congestions levels, often greater than experienced in Tecoma, is not seen to be an adequate reason to reject development proposals. Some additional congestion in a peak period is not accepted by this Tribunal, Vicroads and most Council's to be a sufficient reason to reject a proposal that is somewhat more intensive than has been operating on the land.
7. We are satisfied that the SIDRA analysis prepared by both traffic experts provides an adequate estimate of the likely effects on traffic flows and conditions caused by this proposal. We accept it is not as detailed as other modelling exercises. In our view, this development is not so large or intensive that a comprehensive micro level analysis is needed on every intersection and driveway in proximity to this site for us to be satisfied that this development would not cause catastrophic or substantial congestion. Changing some of the SIDRA assumptions may change the estimated impacts to some degree, but not to the extent that the level of service or public safety declines from slightly more congested to being catastrophic.
8. With regard to Sandells Road, all parties agreed that it is a collector road servicing the residential areas to the north and that it operates well at all times. We are satisfied that the development would have little adverse impact on queue lengths to Burwood Highway or traffic levels. We consider that the mitigation works, being the lengthening of the right turn lane into Burwood Highway, would alleviate any queuing that might arise from the development. We will require that the mitigation works be designed in consultation with the Department of Transport to ensure that they do not constrain the bus service on that road.
9. McNicol Road is an important link between Belgrave and Tecoma. Its intersection with Burwood Highway is awkward and drivers need to exercise care and patience, particularly in the peak period. We have to assess whether this development before us would make this intersection so much worse. On the evidence and information before us, we cannot come to that conclusion. The intersection will continue to operate to a reasonable level. We are satisfied that this development will not make its operation worse nor prejudice its possible signalisation or upgrade in the future.
10. We concur with the expert traffic evidence that eastbound Burwood Highway peak hour traffic congestion is caused by both its configuration near Main Road and the lights at Sandells Road. The present difficulties have not been caused by this development. We must assess the impact of the development, and are satisfied that impact will be minimal. We consider that it is not reasonable that development in the Business 1 Zone in the Tecoma commercial centre be indefinitely thwarted until solutions are implemented, particularly as we consider that the impacts are considerably less severe than seen elsewhere.

1. Many respondents opined that the convenience restaurant would experience antisocial behaviours including graffiti, assaults and drugs. Concerns were expressed about safety near the train station. Some respondents cited Australian news articles and overseas publications that asserted that convenience restaurants have a high incidence of such events relative to other commercial premises. The permit applicant rejected such assertions and submitted that McDonalds convenience restaurants serve several million meals per day throughout Australia, are 'well maintained, well managed and well designed'.
2. We are not persuaded that a McDonald's restaurant is likely to lead to increased social problems in Tecoma. No alcohol is served in their premises. No gaming, music or entertainment occurs. In the context of the high volume of business conducted in McDonald's stores, some antisocial behaviour may occur, but should not be exaggerated. Such behaviours also occasionally occur in petrol stations, supermarkets and other public places that are also open for long periods.
3. We refer again to the scope of our discretion. In our view patron behaviour is part of the use of the land, which does not require planning permission. There are no policies within the Scheme or expert evidence before us that provides a basis to elevate these concerns to being determinative in this case. To do so would be an error.
4. Nevertheless we think that the design of the building and the car park should make the convenience restaurant a safe place. It would be unacceptable that the building's design, lighting and landscaping creates public spaces that are unsafe.
5. We are satisfied that this proposal does not create unsafe spaces. The entries are spacious and visible from the street. The dining area is under surveillance from customer service counters. The car park is open and would be illuminated, free of hidden areas such as retaining walls and under casual surveillance from the outdoor terrace. The outdoor terrace would also be open to casual surveillance from within and outside. We think it would be significantly safer than the present dark and concealed spaces hidden behind the existing buildings, with no lighting or surveillance.
6. The permit applicant would accept a permit condition that requires a Patron Management Plan (PMP) to be prepared and approved by Council. A Patron Management Plan could address matters such as continuous on-site management, staff training to respond to inappropriate behaviours, hours of operation of the COD and outdoor terrace, emergency procedures, 24 hour complaint line, and a register of complaints that could be inspected at short notice by the responsible authority.
7. We concur that this would be appropriate and we include it in the permit.
8. We noted in a previous section that some resident submissions opined that this restaurant is inappropriate in an area of high bushfire risk. We acknowledge that the restaurant operator has a duty of care to staff and patrons on high fire risk days, and we think the PMP is the appropriate instrument to include procedures to respond to high bushfire risk periods, noting that it would have these obligations under other legislation and its general duty of care responsibilities.

1. The responsible authority and many of the respondents were concerned that noise from patrons of the convenience restaurant would detract from the amenity of the area. This could be generated by people congregating on the elevated north facing terrace and in the car park and street. Cars 'hooning' and accelerating, car doors opening and shutting and ordering meals in the car park could also generate noise levels that would disturb neighbours. Delivery and waste collection trucks, and the heating and cooling plant and equipment can also be significant noise generators.
2. We note that the existing café and restaurant presently have north facing outdoor terraces with no acoustic treatment. As far as we are aware, there are no restrictions on their use by staff or patrons, including playing music.
3. The site has only two abutting sensitive interfaces, being the residential dwellings at No.89 Sandells Road to the northeast and unused residential land to the north. No.4-6 Sophia Grove interfaces to the northwest, but those dwellings are separated by the commercial buildings and car park of No.1527 Burwood Highway. It is proposed to install an acoustic fence along the northern and eastern boundaries. The fence would be from 1.8 metres to 3 metres in height. The fence would comprise acoustic palings and be angled inwards at the top.
4. Ms Hui provided expert acoustic evidence. She noted that noise generated by delivery trucks, plant and equipment, and music and noise from the customer operating devices (CODs) will be required to comply with SEPP N-1 that applies to the Melbourne metropolitan area[10]. Ms Hui advised that the installation of an acoustic fence on the northern and eastern boundaries, the careful selection of plant and equipment, and limited times for delivery and waste collection vehicles would enable the development to comply with the SEPP N-1 limits. The Tribunal consistently accepts that compliance with SEPP N-1 is adequate to ensure that noise from these sources does not cause unreasonable offsite disturbance.
5. As the restaurant proposes to operate in the night time, sleep disturbance must also be considered. The primary noise sources that would be likely to disturb neighbours would be voices, opening and closing car doors and accelerating vehicles in the car park. Voices and music on the outdoor terrace could also generate noise that could disturb the neighbours.
6. There is no government legislation or policy that governs night time noise emissions from convenience restaurants. Ms Hui recommended that the following approach be applied to achieve an acceptable outcome:
   • The peak noise from patrons and vehicles be measured and accepted as the maximum noise levels (which is different to the noise levels used in respect of SEPP N-1 that are averaged over a 30 minute period).
   • The noise level to be achieved by below 50-55dBA within a bedroom as this level is accepted as being unlikely to disturb sleep within the room.
   • One or two noise events per night, with maximum internal noise levels of 65-70dBA are also accepted as being unlikely to affect health and well being.
   • Internal noise levels within dwellings with open windows are generally 10dBA lower than the noise measured outside the window.
7. On the basis of the above approach, acoustic attenuation should aim to achieve maximum noise levels of 60-65dBA outside the windows of potentially affected dwellings.
8. Ms Hui provided estimates of the noise levels generated by patrons. The estimated noise levels were based on recorded noise from many McDonald's restaurants and other venues (not McDonald's) that serve alcohol. She advised that the proposed acoustic fencing would limit noise levels from voices at No.89 Sandells Road to the recommended noise levels, except for 'maximum shouting' which is louder than the noise levels generated by very rowdy patrons at a nightclub. Such behaviour and noise levels would be very rare and have not been recorded at any McDonald's restaurant.
9. With regard to noise generated by the CODs, Ms Hui opined that they would not generate noise levels that would cause problems to nearby residents. They would be 13 metres from the eastern boundary and over 30 metres from the northern boundary, and the distances and the acoustic fence would reduce noise levels to the required standards. Somewhat surprisingly, Ms Hui suggested that patrons would potentially make more noise if they have to obtain their meals from within the restaurant, rather than using the drive through. People would generate noise by opening and shutting doors, talking in the car park and starting their cars, and it is quieter to allow them to stay in their cars and use the drive through.
10. With regard to disturbance of the residents of No.4-6 Sophia Grove, we note that the closest dwelling has a blank wall facing the review site. We acknowledge the easternmost dwelling has a small deck on its northern side that has direct line of sight to the review site. This wall and deck would be approximately 40 metres from the CODs and 70 metres from the outdoor terrace. Ms Hui opined residents of the dwelling would not be disturbed as the CODs face away (eastward) from this dwelling and the distances would diminish the noise levels.
11. We concur with the residents that the acoustic evidence is based on modelling and the actual on-ground situation may vary from the evidence and observations from other sites. Ms Hui accepted that the whilst the acoustic evidence is reliable and based on methodology used many times and well tested, it is reasonable to regard it as 'preliminary' and it should be verified following the opening of the restaurant.
12. We generally accept Ms Hui's acoustic evidence that constraining deliveries, applying SEPP N-1 and constructing the acoustic fence would achieve acceptable noise levels at the adjoining dwellings.
13. On the basis of the submissions and evidence with regard to acoustics, we find that further acoustic tests should be completed within 3 months of the commencement of the operations of the restaurant. The tests should measure noise at the adjoining dwellings. The operation of the CODs and the outdoor terrace should also be reviewed in light of the conclusions of those tests. If necessary the outdoor terrace should be closed between 10.00pm and 7.00am if noise levels are found to be excessive and they cannot be attenuated. The permit will include conditions that reflect our findings.

Would the development comprise unreasonable visual bulk?

1. Mr Radisich raised concerns with the visibility of the CODs given the slope of the land. We agree with his submissions that they will be visible, particularly from the west, but have limited visibility from the north and the northeast. We consider that a screen should be provided on the west side of the CODs, given there would be no new fencing to No.2-4 Sophia Grove.
2. The acoustic fence adjacent to No.2/89 Sandells Road will be tall and will cast a shadow into their secluded open space in the afternoon. Provided that the fence has an angled upper section and comprises palings, we are satisfied from the shadow illustrations provided by Mr McGurn that it would not comprise unreasonable visual bulk or cast an unreasonable shadow, given that it is located at an interface between commercial and residential properties.

1. The resident objectors and the responsible authority opined that convenience restaurants such as McDonald's generate large volumes of waste materials. The residents noted that more than half of the expected customers would attend via the drive through and would therefore consume their meals outside the review site. They were concerned that consumers would disperse the disposable containers and wrappers in Tecoma's local streets as well as along waterways, walking trails and roads as throughout the Dandenong Ranges.
2. McDonald's Australia provides food that is convenient and popular. Responsibility for the disposal of the wrapping paper and containers largely rests with its customers, and McDonald's (like the other food and drink premises presently operating in Tecoma), cannot be fairly held to be fully responsible for the behaviour of people after they leave the store. However, we are cognisant that this convenience restaurant will be on the edge of an area noted in planning policy as one of special character and beauty. Hence it is our view that McDonald's is reasonably obliged by planning policy to encourage people to dispose of their rubbish.
3. Whilst such a condition could be considered to relate to the use of the land and be outside our discretion in this matter, we will impose such a condition as we consider that it arises from planning policy. We will require a litter management plan be prepared and approved by Council. The plan will require signage to be placed within the site and car park to encourage people to dispose of their rubbish in bins. It will also require the permit applicant to conduct daily litter patrols within 200 metres of the convenience restaurant. We note that the permit applicant generally agreed to such a permit condition.
4. The storage and disposal of waste should be via a private waste contractor as would be undertaken by all other commercial businesses in Tecoma. We are satisfied this can be managed through permit conditions.
5. Mr Hall and residents were concerned with odours from the food preparation. Odours and flues are usually controlled through other legislation. However, as this matter arises from the development, we will impose a general condition that will require the installation and proper management of odour filters to Council's satisfaction.

Would the development cause unreasonable illumination?

1. It is proposed to illuminate the car park to the rear of the proposed convenience restaurant. Further illumination would also be provided by the signs to be located throughout the site. We note that the application plans provide very limited details of the lighting external to the building.
2. The resident objectors considered that the proposed illumination would be contrary to the night time character of Tecoma and it would disturb animals and birds that are active at night.
3. With regard to the possible impacts of illumination on birds and animals, we were not presented with any lay or expert evidence that provided an objective basis to assess these matters. We were not advised of the particular species that might be affected, their numbers, their sensitivity or adaptability to increased light, or their opportunities to relocate to areas with less light. Given the general nature of these concerns, we give these submissions little weight.
4. Dr Clark is a scientist in the field of optics, vision and human factors. Most of his career was spent with the Australian Defence Science and Technology Organisation. He put forward the following propositions. Firstly the level of illumination for this development is excessive in this semi-rural context. Secondly the levels of illumination in urban areas generally are excessive, preventing the observance of the night sky. Thirdly the relevant Australian Standards fail to limit illumination to reasonable levels, and developments should be required to have lesser levels of illumination. Finally there is emerging evidence that excessive levels of illumination in urban areas generally may be contributing to adverse health problems for residents and staff. In light of this emerging evidence, he urged us to apply the precautionary principle. That principle requires that even though there is presently insufficient or inconclusive medical or scientific evidence to clearly identify causal links between illumination and particular diseases, the evidence is sufficiently credible to establish that there may be a link. Action should be taken now rather than waiting for scientific evidence that provides near certainty to be completed.
5. We are aware of the precautionary principle and the Tribunal has applied it in cases where land is likely to be affected by sea level change. The principle has also been determinative in the assessment of large digital signs at complex intersections where moving images may contribute to driver distraction. In those cases the Tribunal was clearly directed by relevant policy within the Scheme.
6. In this case, there is no policy guidance in the Scheme that suggests that lighting or signage may cause adverse public health outcomes and should therefore be minimised. There is no policy direction that public lighting in urban areas should be limited to allow observance of the night sky. Indeed, planning policy generally encourages illumination of public places as it contributes to their safety[11]. It also encourages illumination of activity centres as it contributes to their vibrancy and use outside more limited business hours.
7. The role of the Tribunal is to interpret and apply the law as we find it. It is not the role of the Tribunal to change laws. Dr Clark confirmed that the proposed lighting would comply with the relevant Australian Standards[12]. He accepted under cross examination that the standards are regularly used to manage light spill where commercial and residential land uses abut. He also agreed that a permit condition could be imposed to require the preparation of an illumination plan and such a plan would be a common approach in developments such as this. This is the approach that we will employ in this matter.
8. We give no weight to Dr Clark's evidence that the general level of urban lighting is excessive and detrimental to the observance of the night sky. We simply note that for the reasons above, the Tribunal is not the appropriate forum in which to prosecute these arguments. The Tribunal has previously heard and disregarded these propositions[13] and we consider them an unnecessary distraction in this case. These submissions from Dr Clark are better directed to forums established to review relevant industry standards and legislation.
9. However, Dr Clark's propositions and the residents' concerns about illumination did not fall on deaf ears. Towards the end of the hearing the permit applicant tabled proposed amendments to draft permit conditions. With regard to lighting, the permit applicant proposed that a lighting plan be prepared. The lighting plan would be required to comply with lower lighting levels that would be installed at a typical convenience restaurant in a suburban location, in recognition of the character of this area. Specifically lighting would be designed to achieve a level of illumination based on treating the adjacent residential areas as 'Dark Surrounds Residential Areas', rather than as a suburban residential area. This would require the lighting to be designed to achieve illumination at the northern and eastern edges of the site of 10 lux between 6.00am and 11.00pm for the direct component if luminance measured in the vertical plane, and 1 lux in the period 11.00pm to 6.00am.
10. The lighting plan would also require lighting to be minimised in views from the north, and we have included further conditions regarding illumination levels from signage.
11. We are satisfied that an illumination management plan that requires the lower illumination levels would be the appropriate instrument to resolve the 'fine detail' to implement the above principles. It would ensure that a level of lighting suitable for public safety is achieved whilst significantly reducing the level of illumination that might intrude into the adjoining low density residential area.

1. McDonald's proposes that the convenience restaurant operates all day, every day. It submits that all of its convenience restaurants in Business 1 Zones operate for similar hours. The hours of operation of other similar businesses in Tecoma are also unconstrained, and we observed that at least one food and drink premises is open late at night.
2. We note that the hours of operation relate to the use of the land. There is no direction in policy that requires or encourages businesses such as this to operate for limited hours. Indeed planning policy encourages activity centres to operate for extended periods[14] as they become more vibrant places and a focus for community life.
3. Whilst we acknowledge the concerns of residents, we find that limiting the hours of operation of the entire restaurant is beyond our discretion in this matter and to do so would be an error.

1. The responsible authority and residents directed us to consider clause 10.04 of the Scheme that generally requires the responsible authority to balance competing objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development. They considered that the proposal has adverse outcomes would outweigh its benefits.
2. We have to apply the Scheme as we find it. The use of the land is not before us and many of the adverse outcomes identified and given weight by the community are not relevant to this matter. The matters that are before us include activation of the Tecoma activity centre as encouraged by policy, integration with the streetscape, building design, landscaping and traffic and parking. We are satisfied that this proposal complies with the Scheme. It would be a contemporary and well designed building that would fit well into the streetscape. It would provide additional landscaping consistent with the vegetation in the locality. We find that the location and operation of its access, loading bay and car parking areas would be satisfactory. Its signage and illumination can be designed to reflect the Tecoma streetscape and night time character. In general, it provides local employment opportunities, supports tourism and broadens the business mix in the centre, as encouraged by policy.
3. We are satisfied that many of the problems raised in submissions are not so significant that they cannot be managed through permit conditions and final design solutions. We are satisfied that Burwood Highway will operate satisfactorily. The car park, loading bay and pedestrian access will be designed to be acceptable. The concerns that are relevant to development (as distinct from use) are not fatal to this proposal. In fact this development has only two sensitive residential interfaces and any possible adverse impacts can be minimised through landscaping, acoustic fencing and limits on signage and illumination.
4. It therefore follows from the above reasons that it is our conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside and a permit be granted.
5. The permit will include conditions that have regard to the submissions and evidence of the parties, and the matters that arise from our reasons.

• Buildings and works for a convenience restaurant (Clauses 34.01 and 53.01)
• Creation, variation and removal of easements (Clause 52.02)
• Displaying business identification and internally illuminated signage (Clause 52.05)
• Removal of vegetation (Clause 53.01)
• Alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 (Clause 52.29)

1. Before the development starts, including the removal of any trees or other vegetation, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (2 copies) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale, with dimensions, and be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

1. the location and details of signage prohibiting right turns on to Burwood Highway 2. the acoustic fence to be constructed of timber palings generally in accordance with Drawings nos. A270 Rev A and A271 Rev A prepared by Richmond and Ross Pty Ltd dated July 2012 and the modified cross section drawings of Appendix E attached to the expert evidence of Ms Hui, Marshall Day dated July 2012 and tabled with the Tribunal

1. improved integration between the public footpath and the setback area to Burwood Highway by the landscape planters at the southwest corner being level with the ground rising to no more than 600mm at the southeast corner

1. the existing northern carriageway easement on Plan A00 1 shaded as 6.2 metres wide along with existing and proposed appurtenant carriageway easements on No. 1533 and No. 1535 Burwood Highway 2. existing and proposed appurtenant carriageway easements on Nos. 1533 and 1535 Burwood Highway on PC372937 before certification 3. a reduction in the number of car parking spaces from 28 to 26 4. all car spaces as 4.9m long to fixed kerbs from accessways, references to spiked lanes are to be deleted 5. no kerb on either side of the carriageway easement on No. 1533 Burwood Highway 6. details of water tanks to be located underground or under the building 7. a schedule of colours and finishes including 1. the roofing material amended from zincalume to a subdued and non-reflective material and colour 2. the blades on the north elevation to be a muted tone 3. the canopy to be muted tones (not vivid white) 4. an alternate treatment including timber to the west facing loading bay wall 5. the application of local stone rather than stackstone cladding to the vertical columns located on the southwest corner of the building 8. the loading bay to be designed in accordance with the plan prepared by Richmond and Ross dated 12 August 2012 and to include a splay to enable acceptable sightlines from the disabled car parking space of northbound traffic using the access aisle to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

1. the location of plant and equipment on the roof to minimise their visibility

1. transparent timber screen(s) to the west side of the CODs to a height of 2.7 metres to minimise their visibility to the west 2. four staff bicycle spaces delineated on the plans within a weatherproof enclosure under the building 3. any amendments required by the Lighting Management Plan required by condition 29 4. any changes to pedestrian circulation or other changes required by the Parking and Traffic Management Plan required by condition 46 5. deletion of signs S13, S9D, either 9A or 9B, S4B and replace sign S2B with sign S4B 6. additional glazing in the north elevation adjacent to the internal stairs to the cashier/servery 7. the canopy on the south elevation reduced to a width of no more than 3 metres, and the canopy to be painted in subdued brown, green or ochre colour(s).

1. The layout of the site and the size of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. Once the development has started, it must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. The plan of creation, variation and removal of easement(s) as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
4. Before the development starts, Lots 1, 2 and 3 on PS529078M must be consolidated and the carriageway easement on Lot 1 on TP 75303 1A must be registered on title to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the occupation of the development, an amended landscaping plan prepared by a suitably qualified expert 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 copies must be provided. The landscaping plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape concept plan prepared by Urbis Pty Ltd in drawing no. LAOO1 Rev A accompanying Darren Atkinson's landscape evidence of July 2012 but modified to show:

1. the replacement of tree 2 described in the expert evidence prepared for the Tribunal by Mr Rob Galbraith dated 19 July 2012 with a suitable native canopy tree species 2. reduction of the extent and height of the planters on the Burwood Highway frontage

1. replacement planting with a suitable native canopy tree with a minimum height of 5 metres if the Liquid Amber is removed, and the installation of an appropriate barriers to protect the tree root zone from excessive compression from pedestrian traffic

1. replacement of the White Cedar trees proposed along the drive through with a species of tall slender native canopy trees suitable to be placed close to passing vehicles 2. provision of advanced tree species where proposed to plant canopy trees 3. the type of irrigation is listed as an in-ground system, and a note that spray irrigation is not appropriate 4. a 24 month maintenance plan with notes on appropriate weed control, irrigation, mulch replenishment, dead plant replacement and pruning to ensure the successful establishment and on-going health of the planting 5. any new lawn areas are to be established with seed, utilising non- invasive grass species include the following appropriate grass species include: Queensland Blue-grass (Dicantheurn sericeum), Red-leg Grass Bothriocholoa macra), Weeping Grass (Microlaena stipoides), Creeping Bent Grass (Agrostis stolonifera), Clustered Wallaby Grass (Danthonia racemosa), Kentucky Blue-grass (Poa pratensis), Tall Fescue (Festuca arundinacea) 6. timber edging which does not utilise Jarrah, Red Gum or Native (White) Cypress Pine (Callitris colurnellaris) unless it can be demonstrated that they are a recycled product. Acceptable products include: treated pine, recycled plastic, moulded concrete, plantation grown Sugar Gum, brick or local stone 7. subject to the consent of the relevant landowners, landscaping in front of any acoustic fence on the boundary between No.89 Sandells Road and 1533 and 12535 Burwood Highway 8. details of the paving materials to be used in the 3 metre wide setback area to Burwood Highway so the area is visually and functionally integrated with the adjoining public footpath.
2. Before the occupation of the development starts or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including replacement of any dead or diseased or damaged plants.

1. The number of seats within the restaurant should not exceed 56 seats internal and 28 external excluding 6 seats in the play ground area to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Before the occupation of the development starts, an amended Patron Management Plan prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted 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 generally in accordance with the Patron Management Plan accompanying the permit application but must additionally address:

1. details and signs to show that no right turns are allowed from the site onto Burwood Highway 2. the area to be covered by the Patron Management Plan

1. the requirement for a roster to be prepared which outlines the number of staff and the responsibilities and authorities of staff to be on the premises at all times

1. the maintenance of a complaints register 2. the publication of a complaints telephone number and email address to adjoining and nearby properties 3. procedures to be undertaken by staff in the event of complaints by a member of the public, the Victoria Police, or an 'authorised officer' of Council 4. the measures to be taken by management and staff to ensure patrons depart the premises and the surrounding area in an orderly manner and car park patrols 5. the measures to be taken by management and staff to ensure that patrons do not cause nuisance or annoyance to persons beyond the land 6. staff be authorised to make statements at any time on their own behalf to any officer of the Responsible Authority and/or to take action on behalf of the operator in accordance with a lawful direction by such officer 7. procedures to evacuate the premises of staff and visitors in an orderly manner in the event of a high fire risk event.
2. The development must operate in accordance with the approved Patron Management Plan and any activities or ongoing obligations contained in the approved plan must be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.

1. Before the occupation of the development starts, odour filters must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and thereafter maintained to control cooking, odours, fumes and smoke so as to prevent the emission of odours outside the premises to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. No external sound amplification equipment or loud speakers may be used including for the purpose of announcements, broadcasts, playing of music or similar purposes, except with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority. This excludes restaurant music that is permitted to be played in the dining area, including the terrace area, and the customer order devices.
3. Bins or other receptacles for any form of rubbish or refuse must not be placed or allowed to remain in the view of the public and unreasonable smell must not emit from any such receptacle.
4. No goods may be stored or left exposed outside the building so as to be visible from any public road or thoroughfare.
5. Before the occupation of the development, the site must drained including landscaped and pavement areas, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. All plant and equipment, including external fans, air conditioning apparatus and the like, must be located, installed and screened so that it does not adversely affect the amenity of the area due to its appearance, noise, emission or otherwise, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. All buildings and works must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8. All security alarms or similar devices installed on the land must be of a silent type in accordance with any current standard published by Standards Australia International Limited and be connected to a security service.

1. Before the occupation of the development starts, the acoustic fences as shown on the approved plans must be erected along the relevant boundaries of the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Subject to the consent of the relevant landowners, acoustic fences must be constructed on the boundary of Nos.1533 and 1535 Burwood Highway at the cost of the applicant.
3. The acoustic fences must be maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
4. Before the occupation of the development starts, the Acoustic Report of Marshall Day Acoustics dated 18 July 20 12 must be endorsed by the Responsible Authority. This acoustic report will then form part of the permit.
5. Before the occupation of the development starts, a report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The report must demonstrate that noise from all mechanical services equipment complies with the noise limits detailed in accordance with the endorsed Acoustic Report of Marshall Day Acoustics dated 18 July 2012.
6. Within 3 months of commencement of the occupation of the building, a further report must be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority demonstrating that compliance with 'Noise from industry in regional Victoria: Recommended maximum noise levels from commerce, industry and trade premises in regional Victoria (NIRV)' has been achieved. If noise emitted from the premises exceeds the recommended noise limits, the report must address additional noise control treatments required to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. The operation of the development must be carried out in accordance with the endorsed acoustic report and any subsequent report referred to in conditions 23 and 24 of this permit.
8. Noise levels from the premises must not exceed the State Environment Protection Authority guideline 'Noise from industry in regional Victoria: Recommended maximum noise levels from commerce, industry and trade premises in regional Victoria (NIRV)' and EPA Publication 1254 - Noise Control Guidelines and accepted sleep disturbance criteria.
9. All external plant and equipment must be acoustically treated or placed in suitable housing to minimise acoustic noise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the occupation of the building, a Lighting Management Plan prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will form part of the permit. The plan must show:

1. the location of all external lighting 2. the layout and design of all external lighting to achieve the recommended maximum values of illuminance in the vertical plane for "Dark Surrounds Residential Areas" specified in Table 2.1 of Australian Standard 4282-1997, applied in respect of the dwellings at Nos.85, 87 and 89 Sandells Road

1. baffling to limit views to external lighting located in the car park and drive through from the residential areas to the north and west.
2. Within 3 months of the commencement of lighting under the Lighting Management Plan, an inspection of the lighting and compliance with the Lighting Management Plan (inspection report) is to be carried out by a suitably qualified expert and a report of the results including any recommendations for lighting management is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any recommendations in the inspection report are to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. All external lighting of the site, including car parking areas and buildings, must be located, directed, baffled and shielded and of such limited intensity that no nuisance or loss of unreasonable amenity is caused to any person beyond the site.

1. Before the occupation of the development starts, a Litter Management Plan prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will form part of the permit. The plan must show:

1. the location of all rubbish bins within the site accessible to the public 2. signage within the restaurant and adjacent to the drive through food collection booths advising patrons that they are within the scenic Dandenongs and encouraging patrons to not litter public areas and road side reserves

1. the conduct of a litter patrol to be undertaken on each day that the premises are open for trading to the public within a 200 metre radius of the site to collect and dispose of any litter emanating from the site.

1. The signs must not contain any flashing lights.
2. The sign lighting must be designed, baffled and located to prevent any adverse impacts on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. The signs must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. The location of the signs, including those on the supporting structure, as shown on the plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
5. The illuminated sign S1 located on the northern elevation of the building must be switched off between the hours of 10.00pm and 7.00am unless otherwise authorised by the Responsible Authority.

Car parking, traffic, loading and unloading/waste collection

1. The loading and unloading of goods from or to vehicles must only be carried out on the site, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Deliveries to and from the site (including waste collection and loading and unloading) must not take place between 10.00pm and 7.00am, unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority.
3. All wastes must be disposed of to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and no liquid waste or polluted waters may be discharged into a sewer or stormwater drainage system.
4. A minimum of 26 car parking spaces (including one space clearly marked as being accessible by disabled persons) must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority at all times unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority.
5. Before the occupation of the development starts, left and right turning lanes must be constructed in Sandells Road at the Burwood Highway intersection generally in accordance with the concept layout JM12830-01 Issue P5 prepared by GTA Consultants to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, VicRoads and the Public Transport Corporation.
6. Before the occupation of the development starts, the parking areas and vehicular accessways shown on the endorsed plans including the accessway on No.1533 Burwood Highway must be, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

1. constructed 2. properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans

1. surfaced with reinforced concrete, asphalt or paving

1. drained incorporating water sensitive urban design elements and maintained 2. line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes 3. clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and driveways.
2. The areas indicated on the endorsed plans for use as car parking spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these purposes at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. All vehicles must enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

1. Before the development starts, a traffic and parking 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. Traffic and parking operations on and adjacent to the site must conform to this endorsed plan. Three copies of the plan must be submitted. The plan must include:

1. all car parking and accessways on land at 1527, 1529, 1529A, 1531, 1533 and 1535 Burwood Highway 2. designation of the use of land to the north of the existing carriageway easements registered on title as for public use E-5 on PS339142 and as E-5 on PS529O78

1. the means by which the direction of traffic and pedestrian flows to and from car parking areas will be controlled both on and off-site

1. the location and marking of a pedestrian crossing point to the rear (northern entrance) to the building and pedestrian safety measures in the northbound aisle of the carriageway to Burwood Highway adjacent to the loading bay. 2. the location and design of any desired speed control devices within the accessways including the entry/exit points to Sandalls Road and Burwood Highway 3. subject to the consent of adjacent landowners, the provision, cost and maintenance of car parking and traffic management measures including speed control devices, directional signage, car parking information and restrictions including any signs designating car parking areas for particular premises between identified times

1. All pipes, fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Unless there is a hydrant connected to a reticulated water supply within 120 metres of any property boundary a fire hydrant/s or onsite fire fighting equipment and/or water storage facilities are to be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Country Fire Authority.
3. Before the engineering construction plans are approved, an inspection/ surveillance fee to the value of 0.5% of the estimated cost of the works must be paid to the Responsible Authority.
4. All sewage and sullage waste must be discharged into a reticulated sewerage system to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Before the occupation of the development starts, piped drainage, including a detention system, must be constructed to drain all impervious areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. Before the development starts, engineering construction plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority showing all car parking, accessways and drainage must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the development must then be constructed in accordance with the approved engineering construction plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. A maintenance bond to the value of $5000 must be paid to the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of the works and to be reimbursed on the practical completion of the works.
8. Before the engineering construction plans are approved, a plan of creation of easement for a carriageway easement of appropriate width over the accessway through No.1533 Burwood Highway must be lodged at and registered by the Titles Office to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
9. Before the occupation of the development starts, the construction of all internal civil works, including car parking, vehicular accessways and drainage is to be inspected and approved by a suitably person. This person must supply written certification that the works have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development starts, a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will then form part of the permit. The Construction Management Plan must include details to ensure activities throughout the construction period are adequately managed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority including, but not be limited to:

1. the operating hours 2. the appropriate means of dust control

1. the method for storage of material.
2. All green waste generated from the clearing of land during the construction phase must be mulched or transported from the site as appropriate. Green waste must not be burnt on site.

1. No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly.

1. Prior to certification, the Plan of Subdivision must be referred to South East Water, in accordance with section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.
2. The certified Plan of Subdivision will need to show sewerage supply easement over all existing and/or proposed South East Water sewer mains located within the land, to be in favour of South East Water under section 12(1) of the Subdivision Act 1988.

1. The plan of subdivision submitted for certification be referred to Telstra in accordance with section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

1. The plan of subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to Multinet Gas in accordance with section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

1. Prior to statement of compliance the applicant must enter into an agreement with SPI Electricity Pty Ltd for the extension, upgrading or rearrangement of the electricity supply to lots on the plan of subdivision. A payment to cover the cost of such work will be required.
2. Prior to statement of compliance, the applicant must provide electricity easements internal and external to the subdivision in favour of SPI Electricity Pty Ltd to service the lots on the plan of subdivision and/or abutting lands as required by SPI Electricity Pty Ltd. The provision of reserves for electricity substations may also be required.

1. Prior to the commencement of the permitted development, a detailed functional layout must be submitted to VicRoads and the Responsible Authority for approval, generally in accordance with the concept layout (JM12830-01 Issue PS) prepared by GTA Consultants.

Once approved by VicRoads, these plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit and must not be altered without the approval of VicRoads.

1. Prior to the commencement of any works required by VicRoads under this permit, a detailed engineering design must be prepared generally in accordance with the accepted functional layout plan and to the satisfaction of VicRoads.
2. Prior to the occupation of the permitted development, all works required by VicRoads under this permit must be completed to the satisfaction of VicRoads and at no cost to VicRoads.
3. The preparation of the detailed engineering design and the construction and completion of all work must be undertaken in a manner consistent with current VicRoads policy, procedures and standards and at no cost to VicRoads. In order to meet VicRoads' requirements for these tasks the applicant will be required to comply with the requirements documented as "Standard Requirements-Developer Funded Projects" and any other requirement considered necessary depending on the nature of the work.
4. No work must be commenced in, on, under or over the road reserve without having first obtaining all necessary approval under the Road Management Act 2004, the Road Safety Act 1986, and any other relevant acts or regulation created under those Acts.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances apply:

1. the Plan of creation, variation, removal of easement(s) is not started within two (2) years of the date of this permit, as evidenced by the plan of subdivision being certified by the Council within that timeframe 2. the registration of the Plan of creation, variation, removal of easement(s) is not completed within five (5) years of the date of certification

1. the development is not started within two years of the date of this permit

1. the development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

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] We have considered all submissions presented by the parties although we do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.

[8] Shown on Plan JM12380-01 Issue 5 prepared by GTA Consultants

[9] Freeman Tecoma Pty Ltd v Yarra Ranges SC [2009] VCAT 2457

[10] State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No.N-1

[12] Australian Standard AS4282-1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting, and AS/NZ 1158.3.1:2005 Lighting for roads and public spaces

[13] Eltham College v Nillumbik SC [2010] VCAT 439