1. In application P594/2025 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
2. In planning permit application PLN23/0555 no permit is granted.

P Ponnuthurai, town planner of Smart Town Planning Pty Ltd

Use and development of a 40 place childcare centre and display a business identification sign.

Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) - to review the refusal to grant a permit.

Clause 32.08-2 - permit required to use land for childcare centre.

Clause 32.08-10 - permit required to construct a building, or constructor carry out works for use in Section 2.

Clause 52.05-2 - permit required to display business identification signage.

The subject land comprises a regular, rectangular shaped allotment of approximately 622 metres squared, with a 15.24 metre frontage to Liege Avenue and 40.84 metre depth. The land currently contains a single-storey brick dwelling.

The surrounding area is predominantly residential, characterised by established single storey dwellings together with more recent double-storey development.

The immediate southern boundary of the subject land abuts Yarraman Oaks Primary School and its associated kindergarten.

Land to the north, east and west is occupied by dwellings.

1. This is an application for review of the Greater Dandenong City Council's ('Council') decision to refuse to grant a planning permit for the use and development of a childcare centre and display a business identification sign at 25 Liege Avenue, Noble Park.
2. Specific details of the proposal were provided in Councils submission as follows:[2]

15.1. Accommodating 40 children with three rooms within the building > > 15.2. A maximum of 10 staff present at the centre > > 15.3. Opening hours: 6.30am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday

3. Details of the proposed development is as follows:

• Outdoor front play area (partially covered).
• One 34sqm baby room for eight kids, a porch for front entry, a reception, an office/ meeting space, two toilets, a laundry, a lift and stair to the upper level with under stair storage.
• Front passing area, driveway with garden bed south of ground level and a car park at the rear with nine spaces (inclusive of one disabled parking space) with an external stair and bin storage area. A 1m-wide landscaping space is proposed east of parking space 4 and 5.

• Outdoor play area (partially covered) of 224sqm. The outdoor area is enclosed by maximum 2m-tall glass acoustic balustrade.
• One 39sqm room for twelve kids, one 66sqm room for twenty kids, a staff room, two toilets, a kitchen, a lift and stair to the lower level.

1. The overall development incorporates setbacks to the front, side and rear with minimum ground floor setbacks nominated as follows:

1. The development has a maximum height of 8.8 metres from natural ground level (measured on north elevation).
2. A 1.8m-tall tubular fence with 0.5m front setback encloses the play area within the frontage. A 2.4m-tall Colorbond Metal Acoustic fence is proposed for the entirety of the north and east boundary.
3. The submitted plans and elevations do not include a material schedule to specify the materials/ colours to be used.
4. Details of the proposed business identification signage is as follows:

21.1. Location: Upper level of the frontage > > 21.2. Height: 3.13m above the natural ground level > > 21.3. Display area: 2.88sqm (width of 1.6m and height of 1.8m) > > 21.4. Content of the sign: Business logo, cartoon of five jumping kids and contact number

5. Council refused to grant a planning permit on the following grounds.
   1. The proposal fails to meet the objective and strategies of Clause 13.05-1S Noise Management and Clause 13.07-1S Land Use Compatibility by failing to facilitate an effective management of noise effects on sensitive residential land use and protect community amenity from adverse off-site impacts.
   2. The proposal fails to meet the objective and strategies of Clause 19.02-2S Education Facilities by inappropriately siting the use in a location that is not safely and efficiently accessible for walking and cycling.
   3. The proposal fails to meet the vision of Clause 21.03 A Vision for Greater Dandenong, as it does not enable a development to positively contribute to the preferred neighbourhood character, hence the vision of an attractive neighbourhood is not realised.
   4. The proposal fails to meet the objectives and strategies of Clause 21.04 Land Use, as it is inconsistent with the policy objective to protect the amenity of residential areas adjacent to particular uses and protect sensitive particular uses from residential development. The strategy of discouraging non-residential uses except along main roads or collector roads or on corner sites is not complied with by the proposal.
   5. The proposal fails to meet the objectives and strategies of Clause 21.05 Built Form as it does not provide an appropriate and high-quality design response that has regard for the surrounding environment, neighbourhood character and built form. Consequently, the proposal fails to meet Clause 15.01-1S Urban design, 15.01-2S Building design and 15.01-5S Neighbourhood Character.
   6. The proposal fails to meet the objective and strategies of Clause 21.07 Infrastructure and Transport. It does not meet the objective to protect residential and other sensitive uses from adverse impacts of vehicular traffic by facilitating a non-residential land use and development with significant impact on the amenity of residential areas.
   7. The proposal fails to meet the purpose, decision guidelines of Clause 32.08 General Residential Zone and the and neighbourhood character objectives of the Schedule 1 to the Zone as:
      • It proposes a development that is not responsive to the neighbourhood character of the area.
      • It proposes a non-residential use in an inappropriate location causing significant amenity concern in the neighbourhood.
      • The scale and intensity of the use and development are inconsistent with the adjoining and surrounding residential development/uses.
      • The design, height, setback and appearance of the proposed buildings and works is at odd with the existing streetscape dominated by dwellings in lower density.
      • Landscaping opportunities are limited in the development to appropriately respond to the neighbourhood character.
      • Safety, efficiency and amenity effects of traffic to be generated by the proposal are deemed unacceptable.
   8. The proposal fails to meet the purpose and the decision guidelines of Clause 52.05 Signs, as:
      • The proposed sign is not compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area.
      • The proposed sign contributes to visual disorder and is at odd to the existing streetscape.
      • The proposed sign cause loss of amenity and adversely affect the built environment.
   9. The proposal does not satisfy the decision guidelines of Clause 65, particularly in relation to the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework, the purpose of the zone and relevant provisions and the orderly planning of the area.
6. In summary, the applicant submits:
   • The application concerns a modest, well designed and strategically located 40 place childcare centre that is purpose built to serve the needs of local families within an established residential catchment.
   • The policy framework strongly supports provision of early childhood services in accessible neighbourhoods.
   • The proposal is supported by comprehensive technical assessments in traffic, acoustics, arboriculture and waste management. These assessments confirm that noise, built form, traffic and operational impacts can all be managed to acceptable levels.
   • The design response is modest in scale and well below the height expectations of the General Residential Zone. The architectural treatment incorporates articulation, setbacks and landscaping to ensure the building fits comfortably within the streetscape.
   • Noise impacts are effectively mitigated through acoustic fencing, glazing and sensitive layout. Activity associated with the childcare centre aligns with the existing patterns of the adjoining primary school.
   • Traffic impacts are low, predictable and well within the capacity of the surrounding street network, with arrival times occurring outside of school peaks and managed through staggered drop-offs.
7. Having regard to the submissions of the parties, the key issues for determination in this matter are:
   • Is the proposal an accepable response to neighbourhood character?
   • Will the proposal have unacceptable amenity impacts?
   • Will the proposal cause unacceptable traffic impacts?
   • Is the proposed sign acceptable?
8. The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered the submissions and with regard to the relevant policies and provisions of the Planning Scheme and assisted by my inspection, I have determined to affirm Council's decision. My reasons follow.

1. Since the lodgement of the application for review, the applicant circulated amended plans that were received by the Tribunal on 27 November 2025. At the commencement of the hearing the applicant sought to substitute the amended plans for the application plans. Council opposed the substitution as the applicant had not followed the Practice Note - PNPE9 - Amendment of Planning Permit Applications and Plans process. Upon consideration of Council's opposition to the application to substitute the amended plans the applicant withdrew the request to substitute plans.

1. The site is located in the General Residential Zone - Schedule 1 ('GRZ1'). The purposes of the zone include:

To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.

To encourage development that is responsive to the neighbourhood character of the area.

.....

To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.

1. Relevant decision guidelines at clause 32.08-14 include:

Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

General

• The Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
• The purpose of this zone.
• The objectives set out in a schedule to this zone.
• Any other decision guidelines specified in a schedule to this zone.
• The impact of overshadowing on existing rooftop solar energy systems on dwellings on adjoining lots in a General Residential Zone, Housing Choice and Transport Zone, Mixed Use Zone, Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Residential Growth Zone or Township Zone.

.....

Non-residential use and development

• Whether the use or development is compatible with residential use.
• Whether the use generally serves local community needs.
• The scale and intensity of the use and development.
• The design, height, setback and appearance of the proposed buildings and works.
• The proposed landscaping.
• The provision of car and bicycle parking and associated accessways.
• Any proposed loading and refuse collection facilities.
• The safety, efficiency and amenity effects of traffic to be generated by the proposal.

1. Schedule 1 to clause 32.08 - General Residential Areas does not include any specific requirement or guidance that relates to non-residential use and development in the GRZ.
2. Clause 1.0 of Schedule 1 to clause 32.08 includes the following relevant Neighbourhood character objectives:

To ensure the scale, built form and setbacks of residential developments respond to the existing site circumstances by respecting the predominant built form, façade and street patterns.

To provide appropriate front, side and rear setbacks, garden areas and significant private open space to allow for substantial high quality landscaping and canopy trees to protect the amenity of adjoining properties and to create a landscape character.

To maximise the opportunities to create high quality landscaping, through minimal paving and the use of permeable ground surfaces.

To ensure vehicle accessways and storage facilities do not visually dominate the streetscape.

.....

1. Clause 6.0 of Schedule 1 to clause 32.08 includes the following decisions guidelines that are in addition to those provided at clause 32.08-14.
   • Whether the development might adversely impact on an item of heritage significance; and
   • Whether the development respects the neighbourhood character of the area.
2. Clause 15.01-1S, Urban design includes an objective to create urban environments that are safe, healthy, functional and enjoyable and that contribute to a sense of place and cultural identity. Relevant strategies include.

Require development to respond to its context in terms of character, cultural identity and heritage, natural features, surrounding landscape and climate.

.....

Ensure the interface between the private and public realm protects and enhances personal safety.

Ensure development supports public realm amenity and safe access to walking and cycling environments and public transport.

Ensure that the design and location of publicly accessible private spaces, including car parking areas, forecourts and walkways, is of a high standard, creates a safe environment for users and enables easy and efficient use.

Ensure that development provides landscaping that supports the amenity, attractiveness and safety of the public realm.

Ensure that development, including signs, minimises detrimental impacts on amenity, on the natural and built environment and on the safety and efficiency of roads.

.....

1. Clause 15.01-1L, Urban design - Greater Dandenong includes the following relevant strategies.

.....

Encourage new developments which are adjacent to public open spaces to address and complement the open space.

......

Encourage planting and landscape themes, which complement and improve the environment.

Encourage developments to provide for canopy trees.

.....

Encourage new developments to establish a landscape setting, which reflects the local and wider landscape character.

Encourage landscaping that integrates canopy trees with a mix of shrubs and ground covers to complement and integrate with existing or proposed landscaping in public areas.

Encourage signs in appropriate areas to include English and one other language reflecting the cultural aspect of the locality.

.....

Ensure signs in residential areas do not dominate the building, the site and the streetscape.

1. Clause 15.01-1L, Signs includes general strategies and policy guidelines and strategies for Street oriented development.
2. Clause 15.01-2S, Building design includes an objective to achieve building design and siting outcomes that contribute positively to the local context, enhance the public realm and support environmentally sustainable development. Relevant strategies include:

Ensure a comprehensive site analysis forms the starting point of the design process and provides the basis for the consideration of height, scale, massing and energy performance of new development.

.....

Minimise the detrimental impact of development on neighbouring properties, the public realm and the natural environment.

Improve the energy performance of buildings through siting and design measures that encourage:

• Passive design responses that minimise the need for heating, cooling and lighting.
• On-site renewable energy generation and storage technology.
• Use of low embodied energy materials.

Restrict the provision of reticulated natural gas in new dwelling development.

Ensure the layout and design of development supports resource recovery, including separation, storage and collection of waste, mixed recycling, glass, organics and e-waste.

Encourage use of recycled and reusable materials in building construction and undertake adaptive reuse of buildings, where practical.

Encourage water efficiency and the use of rainwater, stormwater and recycled water.

Minimise stormwater discharge through site layout and landscaping measures that support on site infiltration and stormwater reuse.

Ensure the form, scale, and appearance of development enhances the function and amenity of the public realm.

Ensure buildings and their interface with the public realm support personal safety, perceptions of safety and property security.

.....

Ensure development considers and responds to transport movement networks and provides safe access and egress for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.

Encourage development to retain existing vegetation.

Ensure development provides landscaping that responds to its site context, enhances the built form, creates safe and attractive spaces and supports cooling and greening of urban areas

1. Clause 15.01-2L, Building design - Greater Dandenong includes the following relevant strategies:

Ensure building design is consistent with the identified future character of an area and fully integrates with surrounding environment.

Encourage high standards of building design and architecture, which allows for flexibility and adaptation in use.

Encourage innovative architecture and building design.

Encourage development to incorporate sustainable design elements that enhance occupant comfort and environmental performance.

Ensure new developments improve streetscapes through generous landscape setbacks and canopy tree planting.

Ensure that private open space areas are well-designed and are of a sufficient size, shape and configuration to best meet private and communal open space needs.

1. Clause 15.01-5S, Neighbourhood character incudes an objective that seeks support and protect neighbourhood character, cultural identity, and sense of place. Relevant strategies include:

Support development that respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character.

Ensure the preferred neighbourhood character is consistent with medium and higher density housing outcomes in areas identified for increased housing.

Ensure development responds to its context and reinforces a sense of place and the valued features and characteristics of the local environment and place by respecting the:

• Pattern of local urban structure and subdivision.
• Underlying natural landscape character and significant vegetation.
• Neighbourhood character values and built form that reflect community identity

1. The Future Change Areas Map at clause 16.01-1L, Future change areas - Greater Dandenong shows the site to be located in an Incremental Change Area. Clause 16.01-1L has an objective that seeks to promote a range of housing types to accommodate the future needs of the municipality's changing population. The strategy seeks to support future housing density at a lower intensity than in Substantial Change Areas, but a higher intensity than in Limited Change Areas.
2. Clause 32.08-15 states that the sign requirements are at clause 52.05 and this zone is in Category 3.
3. Clause 52.05-13 (Category 3- High amenity areas) identifies the business identification sign to be listed in Section 2. Therefore, a permit is required.
4. The display of the proposed signage requires a planning permit pursuant to:
   • Clause 52.05-2 that states a permit is required to construct or put up for display a sign in Section 2.

Relevant considerations are contained on the following key clauses:

1. The relevant purposes of clause 52.05 Signs include:

To regulate the development of land for signs and associated structures.

To ensure signs are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area, including the existing or desired future character.

To ensure signs do not contribute to excessive visual clutter or visual disorder.

To ensure that signs do not cause loss of amenity or adversely affect the natural or built environment or the safety, appearance or efficiency of a road.

1. Clause 52.05-8 includes decision guidelines that relevantly require consideration of matters including the impact of the proposed sign on the character of the area, its relationship to the streetscape, setting or landscape, relationship to the site and building and impact of any illumination.

1. Planning Scheme Amendment C230gdan was gazetted on 12 December 2025 after Council's decision on this application and the Tribunal hearing. By Order dated 23 December 2025, parties were required to make submissions regarding the amendments and its implications (if any) with respect to the proposed development. The responses received were consistent and it is noted the applicant's submission states:[3]

Amendment C230gdan, gazetted on 12 December 2025, replaces the former Local Planning Policy Framework with a new Municipal Planning Strategy at Clause 02, together with a modified Planning Policy Framework at Clauses 11-19. The amendment is policy-neutral in nature and does not introduce changes to zoning, overlays, permit triggers, or the intent of the relevant strategic policy directions.

.....

We confirm that no changes are required to the content of our main submission. The only change arising from Amendment C230gdan relates to the restructuring and renumbering of planning scheme clauses. The clauses relied upon in our submission remain substantively unchanged, and the updated clause numbers and their corresponding equivalents are identified in the mapping table provided above.

IS THE PROPOSAL AN ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE TO NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER?

1. Council submits the proposed built form does not reflect the existing and preferred neighbourhood character. They say the double storey structure is poorly articulated due to the design of the elevated play area. The design response combined with the minimal proposed landscaping is said to result in a built form that is at odds with the existing streetscape and surrounding built form. More specifically they submit:
   • While a double storey structures in GRZ1 does not necessitate any alarm, the bulkiness and articulation of the proposed childcare centre present an unacceptable character response to the neighbourhood.
   • The majority of existing dwellings in the vicinity are single storey. This includes the single storey elements of the adjoining school to the south and its interface along Liege Avenue.
   • Recent double storey developments can be found in the area including three double storey dwellings on the abutting site at 23 Liege Avenue. Double storey development generally has upper storey footprints that are recessed from the ground level footprints, particularly on side and rear setbacks.
   • The proposed double storey facility fails to deliver a recessed upper level. Its upper level footprint is significantly larger than its ground level.
   • The proposed development fails to position more intense and higher elements of the built form towards the front and centre of the site. Instead, the proposed elevated play area becomes higher at the rear of the site due to the topography of the site.
   • The subject site abuts an existing primary school resulting in the presence of a non-residential building in the existing streetscape. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two properties as the school is zoned Public Use Zone Schedule 2 - Education where different planning controls apply.
   • The proposal seeks to construct nine car parking spaces to the side boundaries and a 1.0 metre setback from the rear boundary. The design response limits the provision of landscaping along the side boundaries in the car parking area.
   • The proposed landscape plan shows the provision of two canopy trees, however nearly half of the frontage will be occupied by access ramp or paved driveway as a passing area, limiting the space available for landscaping.
2. The applicant submits:[4]
   1. Council alleges that the development is overly large, poorly articulated and inconsistent with the existing streetscape. These assertions are not supported by the evidence or established VCAT approaches to comparable childcare centre proposals in residential zones.
   2. The proposed maximum height of approximately 7.865 to 8.8 metres is well below the 11-metre height benchmark permitted in the General Residential Zone. Two-storey residential dwellings already exist in the immediate area, including at 23 Liege Avenue and 2A/2B Maxine Court, demonstrating an evolving residential character.
   3. The architectural response incorporates façade modulation, variation in materials, glazing and soft landscaping. These features reduce perceived bulk and ensure the building sits comfortably within the Liege Avenue streetscape.
   4. VCAT has supported similar built forms in residential areas where articulation and landscaping successfully limit visual bulk. Relevant examples include:
      • Glenfern Road, where a larger two-storey childcare building was supported due to articulation and setbacks;
      • St Albans, where a constrained site still accommodated a two-storey form;
      • Banksia Street, where the Tribunal emphasised assessment of character within a broader neighbourhood context.
   5. The subject site benefits from a highly advantageous southern interface, adjoining the Yarraman Oaks Primary School. The school's scale and function create a transition zone that readily accommodates a community facility such as a childcare centre without impacting residential character. 46. The built form is therefore modest, policy-consistent and reflective of current VCAT childcare centre precedent.

1. Council suggests that landscaping opportunities are limited. The proposal includes a landscaped front setback with planting opportunities along the side boundaries.
2. Landscaping can be strengthened via permit conditions if required. This approach is common in Tribunal decisions, including at St Albans, where site constraints were greater than at Liege Avenue.
3. The proposal therefore provides adequate landscaping and opportunities for visual softening.

1. The subject land is located in GRZ1 and the purposes encourage development that is responsive to the neighbourhood character of the area and also allow for the establishment of educational, community and other non-residential uses to serve the local community in appropriate locations.[5]
2. The Neighbourhood character objectives whilst generally referring to residential development seeks the following with respect to built form and landscaping:[6]

To ensure the scale, built form and setbacks of residential developments respond to the existing site circumstances by respecting the predominant built form, façade and street patterns.

To provide appropriate front, side and rear setbacks, garden areas and significant private open space to allow for substantial high quality landscaping and canopy trees to protect the amenity of adjoining properties and to create a landscape character.

To maximise the opportunities to create high quality landscaping, through minimal paving and the use of permeable ground surfaces.

To ensure vehicle accessways and storage facilities do not visually dominate the streetscape.

.....

1. Further relevant strategies seek development to respond to its context in terms of character[7] and support development that respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character.[8]
2. Having regard to the above, establishing a non-residential use such as a childcare centre is contemplated in a GRZ1. However, guidance provided in a relevant purpose, strategies and decision guidelines require consideration of whether development is responsive to the existing neighbourhood character.
3. The locality includes a mix of built form and uses. Whilst a majority of nearby development comprises dwellings, the site abuts Yarrman Oaks Primary School along its south boundary and a two storey shop is located to the south of the site on the corner of Liege Avenue and Joffre Street. Most of the existing dwellings are single storey. However, there are newer two storey dwellings including the three dwelling development that abuts the subject land on its north boundary in the area.
4. Having regard to the mix of uses in the area and the relevant purpose of the GRZ1, I do not have a concern with the proposed childcare centre use or its two storey scale. It is its design and landscape response that is unacceptable.
5. The parties provided a number of previous VCAT decisions that they relied upon. I have taken the relevant matters into account noting each application for review must be determined on its individual facts, context and planning scheme provisions.
6. Relevant decision guidelines require consideration of the design, height, set back and appearance of the proposed buildings and works and the proposed landscaping[9] and whether the development respects the character of the area.[10] The proposed design response includes a two storey built form. At ground level the building incudes an entry, office, baby room, outdoor play area and nine car spaces. The first floor level is comprised of two 'kids' rooms and an external elevated play area. The layout and elevation drawings are shown below.

1. I have been persuaded by Council that the design response is unacceptable in the context of the existing character. Whilst a two storey form is acceptable, I find the response that includes the elevated play area at first floor level along the north, west and south elevations inclusive of the perimeter glass acoustic balustrade is discordant with form of existing development in the area.
2. The proposed design sets back the first floor level from the perimeter edge of the elevated play area consistent with the form of nearby two storey dwellings. However, I have not been persuaded that this design response is sufficient to overcome the impact of the balustrade that is to surround the proposed first floor elevated play areas to the front, side and rear elevations (west, north and east respectively). I find the height of the balustrade that varies from 1.5 metres to 2.0 metres as shown above that is located along the length of the front, side and rear elevation provides limited articulation and creates an unacceptably dominant built form at first floor level.
3. Similarly, the location of a portion of the first floor balustrade immediately above ground floor front (west) facade also contributes to the proposal's unacceptably limited articulation dominant built form when viewed from Liege Avenue frontage. In this context, I find the design response to be unacceptable as it will introduce a built form outcome that is discordant and not respectful or responsive to the existing neighbourhood character.
4. The proposal at ground level includes a play area within the front setback and nine car spaces at the rear of the site accessed by a driveway located along the south boundary. The proposed landscape plan shows provision of two canopy trees capable of growing to a height of 8.0 metres within the front setback play area and perimeter planting along parts of the front, side and rear boundaries as shown below.

1. A relevant neighbourhood character objective seeks to maximise the opportunities to create high quality landscaping, through minimal paving and the use of permeable ground surfaces[15] whilst decision guidelines require consideration of the proposed landscaping.[16]
2. Having regard to the relevant policy guidance, I have not been persuaded by the applicant that the proposal provides adequate landscaping or opportunities for visual softening of the development. Similarly, I am not persuaded the landscape outcome can be strengthened by permit conditions.
3. I have been persuaded by Council the provision of landscaping is unacceptable and note their submission that whilst the landscape plan shows the provision of two canopy trees, nearly half of the frontage will be occupied by access ramp or paved driveway. This design response limits the space available for vegetation provision as the passing area and associated driveway is to be built to the side boundary, leaving limited space for vegetation within the frontage along the south side of the site.
4. Perimeter planting is provided along the west (front), east (rear) and north and south (side) boundaries. The approximate 0.5 metre by 8.0 metre landscape strip located along the front boundary in combination with the two trees located within the play area will contribute to the landscpe character of the area.
5. However, I find the extent of landscaping over the balance of the site to be unacceptable. More specifically the landscape response over the balance of the site is comprised of landscape strips located along the west (rear), north and south (side) boundaries that have an approximate length of 10.0 metres, 11.0 metres and 17.0 metres respectively. I find the limited width and area of these landscape strips combined with their setback of approximately 40.0 metres, 12.0 metres and 7.1 metres respectively from the frontage of the site unacceptably limits their contribution to the streetscape and landscape character of the neighbourhood.
6. Further, I find the lack of planting within the rear of the site and car park area to be unacceptable. The proposal fails to provide any planting to the south of car spaces 1, 2, 3 and 4; and north of car spaces 5, 6, 7, 8,and 9. The lack of planting within the car park area fails to acceptably respond to the neighbourhood character objective that seeks to maximise the opportunities to create high quality landscaping and limit the impact of the paving associated to the proposed carpark.[17]
7. Having regard to the above the proposal fails to meet a relevant purpose of the GRZ1 as it is not responsive to the existing neighbourhood character[18] and relevant neighbourhood character objectives that seek to create high quality landscape outcomes and ensure vehicle accessways do not visually dominate the streetscape.[19]

1. For completeness I note the parties' submissions addressed a range of matters including amenity and traffic impacts and the appropriateness of the proposed sign. Having found the proposal to be unacceptable with respect to neighbourhood character, this is sufficient basis for refusing a permit and there is no utility in making findings on these other matters.
2. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No permit is granted.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[3] Applicant's submission dated 22 January 2026.

[4] Applicant's submission pages 6, 7 and 8.

[6] Schedule 1 to clause 32.08 General Residential Zone.

[10] Clause 6.0 of Schedule 1 to clause 32.08 General Residential Zone.

[11] Plan prepared by Smart Town Planning, Sheet 3, Revision D, Dated 22/12/2024.

[12] Plan prepared by Smart Town Planning, Sheet 4, Revision D, Dated 22/12/2024.

[13] Plan prepared by Smart Town Planning, Sheet 5, Revision D, Dated 22/12/2024

[14] Plan prepared by Infinity Landscape Architects, Drawing No. L01A, Revision A, Dated 22 April 2024.

[15] Clause 1.0 of Schedule 1 to clause 32.08.

[17] Clause 1.0 of Schedule 1 to clause 32.08.

[19] Clause 1.0 of Schedule 1 to clause 32.08.