appellant. VCAT set aside the Responsible Authority's refusal and granted a permit allowing use and development of the land at 128 Chandler Road, Noble Park as a medical centre with two practitioners, subject...
Key principles
Clause 52.06 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme (the car parking provision) permits a discretionary reduction of the standard parking requirement where, having regard to...
The Residential 1 Zone allows a limited range of non-residential uses that serve local community needs; the reuse of an existing dwelling for a medical centre that retains the...
A specialist, appointment-based medical practice (physiotherapy) has inherently lower parking generation than a general medical practice, and the nature and operation of the...
Issues before the court
Whether the use of the existing dwelling as a medical centre is an appropriate use in the Residential 1 Zone
How many practitioners may be reasonably accommodated on the site (intensity of use)
Whether the proposed car parking (six spaces) and layout are adequate despite not meeting the statutory rate (five spaces per practitioner,...
Plain English Summary
VCAT allowed a permit to convert a dwelling into a two-practitioner physiotherapy medical centre despite provision of six on-site car spaces rather than the nine required by the planning scheme. The Tribunal accepted expert evidence and its own inspection showing low peak parking demand due to appointment-based specialist practice, available on-street parking and public transport, and that the proposed car park layout was workable. The Tribunal also held that an internal Council policy not part of the scheme had no weight. The permit was granted with conditions limiting practitioners, requiring staff-only allocation for two tight spaces, and adding 'Appointment Only' to signage.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Deep Dive
1,734 words · generated 13/07/2026
What happened
An application (PLN08/0360) was lodged with the City of Greater Dandenong to convert an existing single-storey dwelling at 128 Chandler Road, Noble Park into a physiotherapy medical centre. The proposal involved internal alterations to provide two consulting rooms and ancillary spaces, additions for a ramp and patio, construction of six car parking spaces at the rear of the site accessed from Lynette Court, and signage. The proposed clinic was to operate by appointment, with two practitioners on site at any one time and hours of operation between 8:00am–7:00pm Monday to Friday and 8:00am–1:00pm Saturday.
Whether the proposed signage is excessive and detrimental to streetscape
Cited legislation
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
Council refused the permit (19 November 2008) on five grounds, principally (1) inadequate car parking (the scheme-required rate was five spaces per practitioner, which would have required nine spaces for two practitioners), (2) non-compliant car parking design and access, (3) safety and practical accessibility issues, (4) non-compliance with Australian Standard AS/NZS 2890.1:2004, and (5) excessive signage.
The applicant sought review in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Planning and Environment List). At the VCAT hearing the applicant substituted amended site and floor plans, called a traffic engineer (Mr Robertson) who provided swept-path and empirical analysis of expected parking demand, and explained that the physiotherapy practice would be appointment-based with 30 minute sessions. Council relied on its traffic engineer's concerns and the Council's 'Policy-Medical Centres' (1998, reviewed 2000).
Member John Keaney inspected the site and surrounding area. He concluded the proposed medical centre was an appropriate use in the Residential 1 Zone, and that the combination of appointment-based specialist practice, availability of on-street parking, proximity to public transport, the empirical parking analysis and the swept-path demonstration of practicality justified a reduction of the clause 52.06 parking requirement from nine to six spaces. VCAT set aside Council's decision and granted a permit subject to conditions (including restriction to two physiotherapists/related specialists, designation of two staff-only parking spaces, and signage to read 'Appointment Only').
Why the court decided this way
The Tribunal's decision turns on two principal strands of reasoning:
Interpretation and application of Clause 52.06 (car parking) in context. Clause 52.06 contains a statutory parking rate (five spaces per practitioner) but expressly allows that the parking requirement may be reduced or waived on the basis of several enumerated considerations: availability of parking in the locality, public transport accessibility, sharing/reduced demand due to the nature of use, empirical assessment of demand, local amenity and any other relevant considerations. The Tribunal applied these enumerated factors to the facts of the site: (a) its inspection observed considerable on-street parking vacancies near the site, (b) the site is close to train and bus, (c) the proposed practice was appointment-based and specialist in nature (physiotherapy), which reduces peak patient numbers, and (d) the applicant's traffic expert provided an empirical assessment and swept-path analysis showing six spaces would suffice and be useable. On these facts the Tribunal concluded the clause 52.06 standard could be reduced to six spaces.
Amenity and compatibility with the Residential 1 Zone. The Tribunal emphasised that the zone permits a limited range of non-residential uses to serve local community needs if appropriate. The Tribunal found the proposal retained the dwelling's residential appearance, maintained landscaping, occupied a corner site opposite an established medical centre (so not an isolated intruder), and offered safe pedestrian access and an accessible ramp. Thus character and safety objections were not sufficient to refuse the application.
The Tribunal also explicitly discounted Council's internal medical centres policy because it was not part of the planning scheme and therefore had no authoritative weight in the permit decision.
Finally, the Tribunal translated its factual conclusions into enforceable conditions (restricting practitioners to two appointment-based physiotherapists, designating staff-only bays, requiring the sign to state 'Appointment Only', and requiring compliance with construction and access standards), thereby tying the permit to the very features the Tribunal relied on to justify reduced parking and acceptability.
Before and after state of the law
Before: The planning scheme prescribes standard parking rates and expects assessing authorities to evaluate proposals against those rates. Clause 52.06 also expressly recognises that strict application of numeric parking standards is not mandatory; rather, the clause already provided a statutory framework permitting reductions after consideration of contextual factors. Many planning decisions have applied these factors, often requiring robust empirical justification to depart from the standard.
After: This VCAT decision is an application of clause 52.06's discretionary framework to a factual matrix where appointment-based specialist medical uses with empirical expert evidence and demonstrable on-street capacity can justify a substantial reduction from statutory parking rates. The case reinforces that Tribunal will:
scrutinise the nature and intensity of the proposed use (appointment-based, specialist vs general practice),
place weight on empirical parking assessments and on-site swept path analyses,
take account of locality characteristics, including existing on-street capacity and public transport access,
and require conditions tying the permitted intensity to the rationale for departure (e.g. limiting to two physiotherapists and appointment lengths).
It also confirms that a council-adopted policy outside the planning scheme is of limited or no weight in statutory permit determinations.
Key passages with plain-English translation
"I have not placed any weight on this policy as it is not part of the planning scheme nor has there been any attempt to include it in the Scheme."
Plain English: A council's internal guidance cannot be treated as part of the planning rules unless it has been incorporated into the planning scheme. Assess decisions against the scheme itself, not standalone council policies.
"On the basis of the empirical analysis, the availability of on street car parking, the proximity to public transport and the specialist nature of the use, I am satisfied that the car parking requirement can be reduced to six."
Plain English: The Tribunal accepted the combined evidence, the traffic expert's data, the observed empty on-street spaces, nearby buses/trains and the appointment-only physiotherapy model, was enough to justify approving fewer car spaces than the standard requires.
"The use must be operated by no more than two physiotherapists or related medical specialists commonly offering consultations or appointments of at least a half an hour in duration."
Plain English: The permit ties the allowed level of activity to the specific assumptions used to justify reduced parking: two practitioners, appointment-based, and at least half-hour consultations.
"I am satisfied that the site is a suitable one for a small medical centre."
Plain English: Taking all factors into account, location, appearance, access and likely impacts, the Tribunal found the proposal appropriate.
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
This decision is most directly relevant where an applicant seeks:
to re-use an existing dwelling in a residential zone for a small, appointment-based medical or other specialist professional use,
to provide fewer on-site car spaces than the statutory rate under Clause 52.06,
where the site is on a corner, near an activity centre and public transport, and has observable on-street parking capacity,
where the applicant can produce empirical parking demand analysis and swept-path/manoeuvre analysis demonstrating practicality,
and where the applicant is prepared to accept conditions directly tying permitted activity to the parking rationale (limits on practitioners, hours, appointment-only operations, staff-only spaces).
If those features are present, a decision-maker should consider whether a Clause 52.06 reduction is supportable and whether conditions can make the departure from the standard acceptable. Conversely, sites without on-street capacity, public transport or empirical evidence of low peak demand will find this precedent less helpful.
How later courts have treated it
This is a VCAT member decision and therefore persuasive rather than binding on other tribunals or courts. It will be cited in later planning tribunal decisions as an example of applying the Clause 52.06 reduction factors in favour of a small appointment-based medical practice. Practitioners should expect other tribunal members to treat the case as useful precedent when similar factual matrices arise, particularly where the applicant provides robust traffic engineering evidence and where the permit conditions directly tie operation to the parking justification.
Note: Since this is a tribunal decision, higher courts may distinguish it on facts or on legal interpretation if appealed, but the case is a useful practical guide for planning officers and applicants on how to package evidence and conditions to justify reduced parking.
Still-open questions
Extent of empirical evidence required: This decision accepted the applicant's empirical analysis and swept-path work. However, it does not set a bright-line rule about the quantum or form of empirical evidence necessary in every case; what will suffice on one suburban corner may be insufficient elsewhere. Applicants and councils will need to develop robust, site-specific parking demand studies where competing evidence exists.
Interaction with Australian Standards: Council relied on AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 non-compliance. The Tribunal accepted the swept-path demonstration and practical usability as persuasive even where the aisle width was narrower than optimal. It is not settled how strictly a tribunal or council will require full compliance with the Standard vs allowing practical departures supported by swept-path evidence.
Weight to non-scheme council policies: This decision treats such policies as having no weight if not incorporated into the scheme. The practical question is how decision-makers will balance local policy expectations and community aspirations where policies remain outside the formal scheme; lobbying to include such policies in the scheme may increase their future effect.
Long-run monitoring and enforcement: The Tribunal imposed conditions linking parking and intensity (two practitioners, appointment-only). It remains an open question how councils will monitor and enforce that a permitted use does not intensify (e.g. additional practitioners or change to drop-in services) without amending the permit. Practical enforcement mechanisms and thresholds for revoking or amending permits remain significant operational issues.
Cumulative impacts in areas with multiple departures: This case concerned a single corner site opposite an existing medical centre. Multiple similar approvals in the same precinct could aggregate parking demand in ways not captured by single-site empirical assessments. Determining when cumulative impact requires refusal, offsetting infrastructure or precinct-level planning remains a live issue.
Practical takeaway for practitioners: Where seeking a clause 52.06 departure, present a fact-based package: appointment-based operation, precise empirical demand analysis, swept-path accessibility evidence, local on-street and public transport observations, and tightly-drafted conditional permit terms that lock usage to the features relied upon. Councils should consider whether their internal policies need to be incorporated into the scheme if they are to be treated as determinative.
Judgment (45 paragraphs)
[1]
Melamed v City of Greater Dandenong [2009] VCAT 802 (4 May 2009)
[2]
Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme; medical centre; existing dwelling; car parking; signage; relevance of Council policy; reduced parking; nature of the end user.
The name of the applicant for review is changed to 'Michael Melamed'.
Amended plans (Existing Floor Plan - Drawing Sheet 3 of 6; and Site Layout Plan - Drawing Sheet 4 of 6) of Neil Fletcher Design Pty. Ltd. are substituted.
The decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
In Permit Application No. PLN08 /0360, a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 128 Chandler Road, Noble Park on the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:
The use and development of the land for the purposes of a medical centre with two practitioners.
[5]
Mr P Newman, Town Planner who called Mr D Robertson, Traffic Engineer of Traffix Group
[6]
At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Newman, on behalf of the applicant for review, sought to change the name of the applicant from PLN Planning Pty Ltd to Michael Melamed. Council did not oppose the request and accordingly I made this order.
By letter received at the Tribunal on 19 March 2009, Mr Newman also foreshadowed a request to amend the proposed 'Site Layout Plan' (Dwg Sheet 4 of 6) and the 'Existing Floor Plan (Dwg Sheet 3 of 6). Once again, Council did not oppose the request and I substituted the plans accordingly.
[7]
Application No. PLN08/0360 was lodged with the City of Greater Dandenong for the purposes of using the existing detached dwelling at No. 128 Chandler Road, Noble Park for a medical centre.
The application, in detail, involves building alterations and a change of use including:
Additions are proposed to the north of the existing building to provide for a patio and a ramp to the entrance at the northern side of the dwelling.
Internal alterations to provide for two (2) consulting rooms, a patient waiting area, children's area, functional assessment room, two treatment rooms and a reception area.
The construction of six (6) car parking spaces at the rear of the site using the existing crossover on Lynette Court for access.
The Medical Centre is proposed to operate between the hours of 8:00am to 7:00pm Monday to Friday and 8:00am to 1:00pm on Saturday.
A maximum of two (2) medical practitioners would work on the site at any one time.
The medical centre would be for a physiotherapy practice.
[8]
I have inspected the subject site and the surrounding area and I adopt the following description of Council:
[9]
The subject site is located on the south-western corner of Chandler Road and Lynette Court, Noble Park. The site is rectangular in shape with a splay at the corner of the streets and has an overall area of approximately 590 square metres, with a frontage to Chandler Road of 16.51 metres including the splay and sideage to Lynette Court of 27.34 metres.
[10]
A single storey residential dwelling currently occupies the site. The dwelling has brick veneer walls and a tiled gabled roof form. The dwelling comprises of five (5) habitable rooms, including kitchen, laundry and bathroom and a single garage. The vehicular access to the site is provided by single crossover from Lynette Court with the pedestrian access at the corner of the streets.
[11]
The dwelling is setback approximately 6 metres from Chandler Road and 2.6m from Lynette Court. There is a 3.050 metre wide easement affecting the site at the rear boundary. A low brick fence and piers exist on the front boundary which will be retained. Vegetation on the site is minimal except for the landscape in the front yard which will be retained. There is no vegetation or trees within the site or in the surrounding sites which will be affected by this proposed development.
[12]
I have also inspected the wider area and noted that the subject site is contained within an established area with residential uses generally immediately surround the subject site. Nearby properties are mainly single dwellings and multi-unit developments. These residential properties generally have some landscaped areas to the front of the site, although vegetation is modest. Some residential properties also have large hard surfaced areas to the front of the sites. A very relevant consideration is that the Chandler Road Medical Centre is opposite the subject site. This large medical centre has extensive rear car parking and is adorned with numerous signs.
The site is also located about 200m from the Railway Parade shopping strip and within about a kilometre of the Noble Park Shopping Centre. There are two bus stops located on either side of Chandler Road within l00m of the subject site.
[13]
The subject site and all surrounding land is within the Residential 1 zone under the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. The purposes of this zone are relevant and include (among other things):
[14]
In appropriate locations to allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs.
[15]
In acknowledgement of this, a 'medical centre' is listed as a use which requires a permit in the zone. A 'medical centre' is defined as:
[16]
Land used to provide health services (including preventative care, diagnosis, medical and surgical treatment, and counselling) to out-patients only.
[17]
I was advised that no overlays affect the site.
Clause 52.05 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme identifies signage controls which are relevant to the application. Clause 52.06 list a variety of car parking standards. The table to Clause 52.06-5 identifies that a Medical Centre requires five (5) car parking spaces per practitioner. It is noted that this provision (which is a state wide provision) can be reduced, or even waived, subject to the applicant justifying a reduced provision based on:
Any relevant parking precinct plan.
The availability of car parking in the locality.
The availability of public transport in the locality.
Any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces.
Any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing use of the land.
Any credit which should be allowed for a car parking demand deemed to have been provided in association with a use which existed before the change of parking requirement.
Local traffic management.
Local amenity including pedestrian amenity.
An empirical assessment of car parking demand.
Any other relevant consideration.
There are relevant State and local planning policies that apply to this application including Clause 11.03-6 (Social Needs), Clause 12 (Metropolitan Development), Clause 18.02 (Car Parking) and Clause 18.06 (Health Facilities). At the local level Clause 21.04-1 of Council's Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) seeks to:
[18]
"......... provide residential environments with a neighbourhood focus that enhances residential amenity, accessibility, safety, enjoyment and quality of life of the community".
[19]
Council referred me to its "Policy-Medical Centres" which was evidently adopted by Council in 1998 and was reviewed in 2000. This policy seeks to ensure that medical centres are located in a manner so as to benefit the community and protect residential amenity.
I have not placed any weight on this policy as it is not part of the planning scheme nor has there been any attempt to include it in the Scheme. We have had 'new format' VPP Planning Schemes now for over a decade and Council would well know that for a policy like this to be relied upon then it must be in the planning scheme.
[20]
Upon receipt of the application, Council advertised it to adjoining owners and occupiers and asked the applicant to erect a sign on the site. Two objections were received by Council from neighbours on either side of the property. The grounds of objection were:
Potential noise close to bedroom windows;
Inadequate car parking;
Increased public movement and safety;
Access issues for elderly and disabled.
Council also sought the comments of its internal departments, the most relevant of which was from the traffic engineer who noted:
The statutory requirements of five (5) car spaces/practitioner is considered appropriate and is not provided for the proposal.
Reception area is shown on plans but the traffic report says 'probably no receptionist'.
No disabled car spaces have been provided.
Template provided overlap into the spaces and physiotherapy patients require smoother parking manoeuvres compared to standard drivers.
Council ultimately resolved to refuse the application on 19 November 2008, citing the following grounds:
Inadequate car parking is proposed for the use having regard to the car parking provisions outlined under Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme.
The proposed car parking design is contrary to the car parking design requirements outlined under Clause 52.06-3 of the Planning Scheme.
The proposed car parking does not provide a safe and efficient car parking use and access.
The proposed car parking layout and design would not meet Australian Standard AS/NZS 2890.1:2004.
The proposed sign is considered to be excessive and would be an undesirable intrusion into the streetscape.
[21]
Based on my inspection of the site and my consideration of the submissions, I believe that the following issues need to be addressed:
The use of the site for a medical centre;
The number of practitioners;
Car parking;
Signage
[22]
While Council quite fairly conceded that planning policy encouraged community facilities such as medical centres in areas which are readily accessible to residents, it claimed that for character, parking and safety reasons, this site was not appropriate.
I will leave the issue of parking until later, but I am not able to support Council's reliance on character or safety for rejection of the proposal. In terms of character the applicant is seemingly doing what nearly every Council would like, which is to re-use an existing dwelling to maintain the residential character or appearance of the area. To the casual observer, or the passer by, the only hint of a change in the existing settlement pattern will be a small sign in the front yard. The house is effectively unchanged, the front yard will remain as it is, the garden will stay and all fencing will retain its residential flavour.
In terms of safety, there is clear pedestrian access to the site and there is to be a new ramp from the rear car park into the building.
I have already noted that I do not place any weight on Council's medical centre policy. However, the policy has clearly been used by Council in its decision and I note that, among other things, the policy seeks to identify:
Preferred locations including major roads and corner lots;
Opening hours being typically 8am to 7pm (M/F) and 8am to 1pm (Saturday);
Car parking requirements of five (5) spaces for the first practitioner and four (4) spaces for the second. No mention is made of a reduction or waiver of car parking which I find curious given the state wide provisions of Clause 52.06.
I think that it is notable that there is a high degree of compliance with the policy especially in terms of:
main road location
corner block
avoidance of mid block site
retention of dwelling appearance
maintenance of residential type landscaping
hours of operation
It seems that the only divergence from Council's ambition concerns signage, which is marginal, and car parking which centres on whether there is any discretion to waive or reduce its standards.
In my view, this is a good as site as there is for a medical centre. It is close to an activity centre, opposite a large medical practice, it avoids a mid block arrangement, it can gain access from the side street and not the main road, it can serve a wide residential catchment accessible by foot, it has acceptable 'day time' hours of operation and it maintains the residential streetscape.
[23]
The real difference between Council and the applicant is that (extrapolating from its grounds of refusal), Council thinks that the site can only support one practitioner, while the applicant wants two.
In support of the request for two practitioners, the applicant noted that the practice will be used by two physiotherapists who currently practice from across the road. Their practice is appointment generated and each of these last for 30 minutes. Evidently, people don't 'drop in' to see a physiotherapist as they might a GP. The half hour appointments also usually means that there is not a bank up of patients. I was also advised that ideally, the applicant would like to engage a receptionist.
I think that the nature of the practice is a relevant consideration, and I acknowledge that there is a practical difference between a generalist clinic and a specialist one in terms of intensity and therefore parking generation. The evidence of Mr. Robertson on this was that there was only likely to be one patient waiting while the preceding appointment concludes giving a peak patient demand of four spaces. On top of this there will need to be a space for the two practitioners and the receptionist giving a total demand of seven spaces.
The applicant is quite prepared to commit to a conditional approval based on the specialist nature of the practice and he relied upon the Tribunal decision in Judy Hope and Nick Keks vs. Monash City Council and Natalia Tommasini (P285/2007). In that case, the application was also to be appointment based and a dispensation on parking was allowed owing to (among other things) the low intensity nature of the use whereby only one or two patients were likely to be seen at any one time.
In principle, I support such an outcome and acknowledge that the nature of a specialist practice has a considerable impact on the likely car parking demands.
[24]
The major drawback of the application, according to Council is its reliance on only six (6) car spaces rather than their required nine (9). Further, Council has some concerns about the practical accessibility of these spaces.
The permit applicant relied upon the evidence of Mr Robertson who noted that:
The proposed on-site car parking provision will require up to only one car generated by the proposed development to park on street.
There is scope for this parking demand to occur in either Chandler Road or Lynette Court particular without significantly affecting the availability of car parking for others.
Should the Tribunal consider that it is not appropriate for up to one car from the proposed physiotherapist centre to park on street, the parking demand of the proposed physiotherapist can be reduced by one space by staggering the starting times of appointments by at least 10 minutes.
The site enjoys good public transport accessibility, which will serve to reduce the parking demands of the proposed use.
The proposed car park design provides an appropriate level of accessibility for the intended users of the various spaces.
There are no traffic engineering reasons why a permit for the proposed two-practitioner physiotherapy centre at 128 Chandler Road, Noble Park should not be issued.
I think that the best way to address this issue is to work through the relevant provisions of Clause 52.06-5 which I think are:
The availability of car parking in the locality.
The availability of public transport in the locality.
Any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces.
Local amenity including pedestrian amenity.
An empirical assessment of car parking demand.
[25]
On my inspection (midday, midweek), and with the clinic operating across the road, it was apparent that there was considerable on street parking vacancies both in Lynette Court and on Chandler Road. Indeed, at the time of my inspection there was not one car parked on either road near to the site.
Outside the site along Lynette, there is easily room for two or more spaces and, based on the empirical analysis of the applicant of a shortfall of one space, there will clearly be enough space on-street to meet this shortfall. In fact even if there is a shortfall of three spaces as Council claim then I still think that there is ample on-street parking available. This once again goes to the suitability of this site for a medical centre as it is able to benefit from ample on-street car parking. Not all sites will have that benefit. On top of this there is some public transport nearby by way of train and bus.
On the basis of the empirical analysis, the availability of on street car parking, the proximity to public transport and the specialist nature of the use, I am satisfied that the car parking requirement can be reduced to six.
Council were also concerned about the practicality of the six spaces and I was assisted by Mr. Robertson's 'swept path' analysis. There is no doubt that car parking in the rear yard will be tight with the tightest two spaces being Nos. 1 and 2 directly west of the clinic. I note that these spaces are very wide (up to 4m) and are of standard length (4.9m) with a narrow aisle (3.67m). On the basis of the analysis, I am satisfied that the spaces will be accessible but I think that they should be allocated to two staff so that movements in and out of them will be minimised. Beyond these two spaces, the other spaces are also wider than usual to compensate for the narrower aisle width (5.7m). Again I am assisted by the swept path analysis. I do not doubt that parking may sometimes involve more than one manoeuvre but I think that all of this can be safely carried out on site.
[26]
The last issue concerns signage and as I think that a permit should be issued, then I think that it is reasonable to allow the proposed small double sided sign (visible from both directions along Chandler Road) subject to the additional words "Appointment Only".
[27]
I am satisfied that the site is a suitable one for a small medical centre. The specialist nature of the use and the 'appointment based' nature of the practice enables me to conclude that two practitioners can be accommodated with the six available spaces given the likely demands and the ability to have overflow parking on the street.
It is directed that a conditional permit be issued.
[28]
Before the use starts, two (2) copies of amended plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, 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.
[29]
The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application, but modified to show:
[30]
1.1 The promotion sign being visible from both sides and with the words 'Appointment Only' being added.
[31]
1.2 Landscape details for the whole of the site showing species native to the Greater Dandenong region.
[32]
1.3 Car Spaces No. 1 and 2 must be marked, used and designated for staff purposes only.
[33]
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[34]
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Once the development and use has started, it must be continued and completed all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The use must be operated by no more than two physiotherapists or related medical specialists commonly offering consultations or appointments of at least a half an hour in duration. Unless the permit is amended or a new permit obtained, having regard to site access and car parking availability, the use must not be operated by general medical practitioners.
The use may operate only between the hours of 8.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Friday and 8:00am to 1:00pm Saturdays unless with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Before the use starts areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:
[35]
6.1 Constructed in accordance with the endorsed plan/s.
[36]
6.3 Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
[37]
Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.
[38]
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[39]
The car parking area must be lit if in use during hours of darkness, and all lights must be designed, fitted with suitable baffles and located to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The carparking provided on the land must always be available for use by persons employed on or visiting the subject premises, and no measures may be taken to restrict access to the carpark by such persons, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the use or development, through the:
[40]
9.1 Transport of materials, goods, or commodities to or from the land.
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[43]
The location and details of the sign shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
The proposed sign must not be animated and no flashing or intermittent lights may be displayed.
The proposed sign must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The permit for the sign is only valid for as long as the site is used and developed in accordance with this Planning Permit.
[44]
The use does not start within two (2) years of the date of this permit, or
The use is discontinued for a period of two (2) years.
[45]
Before the permit expires or within three (3) months afterwards the owner occupier of the land may in writing request the Responsible Authority to extend the expiry date.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Melamed
Respondent/Defendant:
City of Greater Dandenong [2009] VCAT 802
AI Analysis
Outcomeappellant
Disposition:
VCAT set aside the Responsible Authority's refusal and granted a permit allowing use and development of the land at 128 Chandler Road, Noble Park as a medical centre with two practitioners, subject to conditions (amended plans, parking design and allocation, operating hours, signage marked 'Appointment Only', and other standard conditions).
I am satisfied that the use is an appropriate one for the site. The next question to resolve is the intensity of that use.