D Danscuk, J Radley, E and A Ball, D Philipsen, Park Orchards Kindergarten, R Hadley, K Thomas, S Galbally, D and A Mayor, B Britton, Park Orchards Ratepayers Association Inc, S and H Scott, M Walmsley, I Hartman, J Washbourne and J Lewis, G Huggins, C Radisich, D Edwards, R and K Cunningham, T Street, S Graham, M Edmonds, A Kayton

Park Orchards Aged Services Property Pty Ltd v Manningham CC & Ors [2010] VCAT 1476

1. Pursuant to section 60 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 M Edmonds and A Kayton are joined as parties to this proceeding.
2. The decision of the responsible authority in relation to permit application no. PL08/019996 is set aside.

A permit is granted in relation to land at 579-581 Park Road, Park Orchards. The permit will allow:

• use and development of the land for the purpose of an aged care facility
• partial demolition of an existing building
• removal of vegetation
• reduction of car parking
• reduction of bicycle parking

1. The permit is subject to the conditions contained in Appendix 1 to these reasons.

Ms S Brennan, barrister, instructed by Norton Rose.

• Mr M Negri, director and town planner, Contour Consulting
• Mr T DeYoung traffic engineer, GTA Consultants
• Mr B Raworth, Heritage architect
• Mr J Patrick, director and landscape architect, John Patrick Landscape Architects.

An expert report on infrastructure services prepared by Mr I Blackley, engineer, Irwin Consult was accepted as read.

He was assisted by Ms N Swan, town planner, Council.

• Mr R Milner, director and town planner, 10 Consulting Group
• Mr R Beeston, heritage architect, RBA Architects.

Mr T Radisich, town planning consultant, representing the Park Orchards Ratepayers Association Inc and D Danscuk, E and A Ball, M Walmsley, and C Radisich.

• Mr B Trethowan, heritage architect, Trethowan Architecture.

D Philipsen, R Hadley, S Galbally, D Mayor, Dr Walmsley and R Cunningham in person.

It is proposed to develop a residential aged care facility on the land. The proposed development includes.

• Retention of the southern part of the chalet, and demolition of the eastern and western wings at the rear of the chalet.
• A two storey aged care facility generally built behind the chalet, with a maximum height of 9.2 metres fronting Park Road, and 7.8 metres to the northern sections of the building.
• Accommodation for 91 residents comprising 27 low care beds, 64 high care beds and palliative care.
• Car parking for 30 vehicles, including one space for disabled motorists, located on the eastern side of the land and accessed via Park Street close to the existing crossover.
• A one way service delivery driveway generally in the centre of the frontage to Park Road.
• Parking for six bicycles.
• Removal of vegetation except for three red gums in the centre of the land and Monterey pines on the western boundary.
• Extensive planting of new vegetation.
• Two metre high paling fence on the boundaries.

The new building would have a site coverage of 44 percent. It would be set back 5.8 metres from Park Road, 5 metres from the north boundary, 8 metres to 18 metres from the eastern boundary and 6.7 metres to 10 metres from the western boundary.

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Clause 32.03-1 (Use of land for a section 2 use in LDZ)

Clause 42.03-2 (construct building, carry out works, remove vegetation under SLO1)

Clause 52.34-1 (reduction of bicycle parking spaces)

Clauses 11, 12.01, 15.09, 15.11, 15.12, 16.06, 18.03, 18.06, 19.03, 21.02, 21.03, 21.06, 21.11, 22.02, 22.03, 22.04, 52.06 and 65.

Ageing well in Manningham 2006-2010 -Manningham City Council.

Eastern Metro Aged Care Planning Region, Victoria - Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing

Trends in Aged Care Services: Some Implications - Productivity Commission (September 2008)

The review site is located on the north side of Park Road, approximately 70 metres east of Arundel Road. The site is irregular in shape, with a frontage of 127.4 metres to Park Road, and an area of 7,023 square metres.

The land rises approximately 3 metres from the southern boundary to the centre and is relatively flat towards the northern boundary.

The site is occupied by the Park Orchards Chalet building, which is presently unoccupied. Access to the site is from Park Road via a crossover at the eastern side. A driveway is also located on the western side of the chalet with access to Park Road.

The site has extensive vegetation cover in its centre and around its western and northern boundaries. The vegetation comprises Monterey pines and remnant indigenous trees, notably Red box eucalypts.

Land to the north, east and west is occupied by dwellings on 0.2 to 0.4 ha lots. The dwellings range from single storey to three storey. They generally have generous front setbacks and extensive vegetation to the side and rear boundaries. Many dwellings fronting Park Road have high front fences.

The Park Orchards neighbourhood centre is located on the south side of Park Road. The centre comprises approximately nine single storey shops fronting Park Road and other shops are located in Hopetoun Road. The shops include convenience fast food and a small supermarket. A petrol station, dental practice and natural health services are located near the shops. A community house, primary school and recreation/sporting facilities are also located on the south side of Park Road.

Bus services operate on Park Road, except on Sundays.

I undertook inspections of the site and its environs on 1 August and 1 September 2010. The parties did not accompany the inspections.

Cambrai Pty Ltd v Geelong City Council [2002] VCAT 1048

Lineus May Nominees Pty Ltd v Stonnington City Council 22 AATR 248

De Nova v Manningham City Council (1997) VCAT 209

1. There are many frail aged people in our community, and that group will increase as time ages the baby boomers. Many of the frail aged will need supported accommodation, which is increasingly provided in residential care buildings with 90 and more beds. Additional aged care facilities are needed to meet the forecast demand. They are large buildings that need large sites. They look different to a single dwelling on a single lot.
2. This is a case where an aged care facility is proposed to be built opposite a small neighbourhood shopping centre, close to a school and community house. It would be two storeys and cover more of the site than would a single dwelling. It will be built behind the Park Orchards Chalet, an historic building valued by the community, and one third of the chalet will be demolished. As the aged care facility is relatively large, many trees will need to be removed. Residents say that the development is too large and does not fit into the prevailing rustic, bushlike setting. They want to retain all of the chalet and are concerned about traffic and parking. They say that their community is still young and that an aged care facility is not needed in their community.
3. In December 2009, Manningham City Council determined to refuse to grant a planning permit for a residential aged care facility. The permit applicant has sought a review of council's decision. Twenty-eight objectors, including the Park Orchards Kindergarten and the Park Orchards Residents Association are parties to the review.
4. The issues that have been raised in submissions and by the planning policy framework that I need to determine are:
   • Is there a need for an aged care facility in Park Orchards?
   • Is the site an appropriate location for an aged care facility?
   • Is the design respectful of the neighbourhood character and remnant vegetation?
   • Is the design respectful of the heritage place?
   • Does the design impose adverse impacts on its neighbours?
   • Does the development provide satisfactory amenity for its residents?
5. The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Manningham Planning Scheme, I have decided to grant a permit, subject to conditions that require changes to the design, particularly in respect of its interface to Park Road. My reasons follow.

IS THERE A NEED FOR AN AGED CARE FACILITY IN PARK ORCHARDS?

1. Is an aged care facility needed in Park Orchards? The applicant thinks so, council thought that a smaller facility is appropriate, and some of the resident submitters thought that it is not required.
2. The Municipal Strategic Statement in the Manningham Planning Scheme ('the scheme') notes that in 2006, 22.5 percent of the municipality's residents were aged 60 years and over. It is projected that by 2031, this will increase to 38,292 residents or 28 percent of the population of Manningham. Manningham has a higher proportion of people aged over 70 years than metropolitan Melbourne[2]. By 2031, there is expected to be a significant increase in the percentage of persons aged over 70+ years[3]. The 70+ age group, being the age group most needing supported accommodation, is expected to double between 2003 and 2019[4]. Whilst many aged residents will continue to live independently in their homes, an increasing number will need to move into supported accommodation.
3. Council's aged care policy forecasts that an additional 1,000 aged care places will be needed over the next 25 years[5]. At an average size of approximately 90 beds, Manningham will need in the order of 11 additional aged care facilities. Since 2005, the commonwealth government has recognised this growing need and the eastern region of Melbourne, including Manningham has had the highest allocation of commonwealth funded aged care beds.
4. It was submitted by the residents that the Park Orchards community is relatively young and many of the older residents are leaving and being replaced by younger households. It was also put that Park Orchards is a small community of approximately 1250 households. A large residential aged care facility would provide more beds than would be needed by residents of Park Orchards, particularly if only a small proportion of residents would eventually move into the facility.
5. Some of the future residents of this facility might be the aged relatives of households who live in Park Orchards. Those residents and their aged relatives may find it convenient to have their aged relatives living nearby. Older people living in the wider locality including Ringwood, Warrandyte, Warrandyte South and Wonga Park would be likely to be interested in moving to this facility. Given the forecasts that indicate substantial growth in the number of frail aged people, I have little doubt that there would be a demand for this facility.
6. The tribunal has found that need is a relevant but not determinative factor. In DeNova v Manningham CC[6] the tribunal commented that:

If need for a facility or service can be demonstrated that may in certain cases, weigh in favour of a proposal. Need however will rarely be a decisive factor.

1. Other tribunal decisions have given weight to the need for aged accommodation. Such accommodation is seen to be for people who are somewhat vulnerable, and who deserve to live with comfort and dignity. Aged people should have options to remain in the areas in which they have lived, and be able to live in supported accommodation close to family and friends. It is best to provide these housing options in most residential areas to enable people to age in place, rather than having to move to unfamiliar places[7].
2. I am satisfied that there will be many more frail, older people who will need supported accommodation in Manningham and Park Orchards. Planning policies encourage the development of aged care facilities to meet current and forecast needs, and to enable older people to age in place. I do not think that a greater level of justification is needed beyond a general proposition that this community is ageing and more facilities are required. It is not for planning to determine the balance of demand and supply at a fine grain level.
3. I give some weight in this matter that there is a need for additional aged care facilities in Manningham. These facilities need to be relatively large developments as operational and compliance requirements and consumer preferences make smaller aged care facilities less viable. They therefore need larger sites, and well located sites are often difficult to find and secure. Whilst an aged care facility may be needed, it must also demonstrate that it meets the usual planning considerations of compliance with planning policy, can be a good neighbour, integrate and comfortably fit into the neighbourhood. In my view, it is these considerations that decide this case.

IS THE SITE AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR AN AGED CARE FACILITY?

1. The review site is located in a low density residential zone. Mr Milner, and Mr Negri agreed that an aged care facility is an appropriate use in a low density residential zone. I agree with their view. An aged care facility is a residential use, to be located in a residential zone. State and local planning policies encourage the provision of a range of housing options to meet the diverse housing needs of various households[8]. People should have access to different housing types in their locality so as their housing needs change, they can continue to live in the same locality.
2. Where should residential aged care facilities be located? Guidance is given at clause 16.06 (residential aged care facilities) and clause 22.04 (accommodation premises policy). Preferred locations should have the following attributes:
   • Be located in residential areas.
   • Be in or close to activity centres to provide convenient access to community and retail facilities and provide opportunities for interaction.
   • Close to public transport.
   • On land that is at a suitable grade to provide east pedestrian access.
   • On a main road.
   • On a site with a frontage of at least 15 metres.
   • On a site where the development does not require extensive earthworks to create level floors within the building.
3. The review site meets many of these location preferences. It is in a residential area. It is opposite the Park Orchards shopping centre, which is identified as a neighbourhood activity centre in the strategic overview framework plan[9]. This activity centre has a mix of retail and community facilities including a community house, café and primary school. This provides the opportunity for interactions. Groups of residents living in the aged care facility might visit the café for coffee outings. They might also visit or have some interaction with the school and/or community house (eg sharing local history, crafts, skills, experiences). Furthermore, visitors and staff might purchase gifts for residents or items for themselves.
4. Several bus services operate along Park Road (although I was advised by residents that services are not available at night or on Sundays). I would anticipate that only a few staff and visitors might use public transport, and whilst the service is more limited than in other places, it is available when most people might wish to use it.
5. This site is well located to community infrastructure and services. The site is largely flat, and can be developed with level floors, with extensive earthworks. It abuts dwellings and there are no nearby land uses that would cause problems for the residents. The traffic levels on Park Road are not so great to create amenity problems for the residents. In my view, it is a good location for an aged care facility and the location meets most of the policy criteria.
6. The policy framework also requires me to ensure that a development with a large building can fit comfortably into its neighbourhood. A new development should respect and be consistent with the built form, siting, massing and appearance of its context. The decision guidelines also require me to consider:
   • The protection and enhancement of the natural environment and character of the area including the retention of vegetation and faunal habitat and the need to plant vegetation along waterways, gullies, ridgelines and property boundaries.
7. Manningham's low density areas are seen as a buffer between the green wedges and urban residential areas. Residential development in the low density areas should not detract from the area's landscape character and environmental qualities. Indigenous vegetation cover should be retained including pine and cypress trees. The low density character of the area should be retained through the predominance of single dwellings on lots and discouraging inappropriate development[10].
8. The significant landscape overlay (SLO) has been applied to guide development. The overlay encourages sensitive siting of buildings and earthworks, and discourages intrusion into the landscape. Significant vegetation should be restored.
9. Under the SLO, planning permission is required to construct a dwelling that has a site coverage greater than 15 percent, is closer than 10 metres to the front boundary or closer than 5 metres to a side boundary. I agree with Ms Brennan that these requirements do not apply to an aged care facility, and in respect of a dwelling, planning approval can be granted for development that varies from the requirements.
10. This case is concerned with whether a built form greater than a single house should be located into an area characterised by relatively low site coverage and generous setbacks. In this case, the operational requirements of aged care requires a built form that necessarily has a greater site coverage and greater built form than single dwellings on larger lots. I turn to the built form and landscape aspects below.

IS THE DESIGN RESPECTFUL OF THE REMNANT VEGETATION AND NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER?

1. The central matter to be determined in this review is whether a building that has a relatively large built form and site coverage fits comfortably into the low density residential neighbourhood. Mr Montebello, Mr Milner and the resident submitters say that it is too large and intrusive. Mr Montebello characterised the low density area as being 'rustic, bushy, spacious with a natural feel'. He put that the proposed building and landscaping would be a more urban feel and appearance than should be developed in a low density zone.
2. Ms Brennan noted that an aged care facility is necessarily going to be a larger building than a dwelling, but that the proposed building has been designed to be respectful and comfortably sit in the locality. Mr Negri had a similar view and submitted that the building fits in because:
   • This part of Park Road has a distinctly urban feel due to the presence of the primary school, community house and retail facilities, and its built form to Park Road should be distinguished from the low density residential development to the north and east of the review site.
   • The proposed building heights are similar to the chalet and nearby two storey dwellings.
   • Its setbacks to the internal boundaries are consistent with the requirements of the SLO schedule.
   • The setbacks to the adjoining properties have been designed so that buildings adjoin the nearby dwellings, and the areas of open space within the development generally abut the landscaped areas in the adjoining properties.
   • The setbacks to Park Road are consistent with the adjoining dwelling at 2 Arundel Road.
   • Significant vegetation will be retained and augmented by substantial new planting.
3. The relatively large built form would be made more obvious by the removal of much of the vegetation on the site. Mr Patrick accepted that there would be less landscaping than at present, and that the proposed landscaping would be 'evocative' rather than being as dense or robust as the existing vegetation.
4. Mr Patrick described the existing vegetation as a poorly maintained heritage garden to the south of the chalet, and dense cover to the west and north comprising Monterey pines and remnant indigenous red box eucalypts. It is proposed to remove many of the Monterey pines to the west and north of the site. Three significant red box eucalypts in the centre will be retained.
5. I am generally satisfied that the loss of planting would not be detrimental to the landscape quality of the site. There are presently 38 pine trees on the land. Many of the Monterey pines have self seeded, are small and should be regarded as an environmental weed. The retention of some pines in the western landscape strip provides an 'evocative' reminder of a windrow.
6. Mr Radisich alerted me to amendment C54 that has been placed on public exhibition. The amendment proposes to introduce significant landscape overlay schedule 6 that recognises the landscape significance of the Monterey pines and encourages their retention. I give no weight to this amendment as it is currently on public exhibition. It has not been adopted by council or been the subject of review by an independent panel. Given that pines are also an environmental weed and unfavourable to other species, it is apparent to me that the approval of this amendment is highly uncertain.
7. With respect to the remnant indigenous trees, presently the site contains 40 native trees, 17 of which are remnant trees. Five of these trees are not located on the review site (nos. 1, 53, 54, 60 and 89). Four of the trees (nos. 28, 35, 39 and 67) are in poor condition. Mr Patrick identified tree 55 as also requiring removal, and suggested that trees 60 and 64 in the northeast corner are in poor condition. Tree 91 is in close proximity to tree 3 and one should be removed to enable the other to grow to its full potential. He preferred removing tree 3 as it is a pine tree. Three trees are in good condition (trees 46, 47 and 48) and should be retained.
8. The proposed development retains the three most notable trees in the centre of the site (trees 49, 65 and 66) and these would form the nucleus of a central courtyard. At approximately 18 metres in height, they would extend over the proposed building and continue to contribute to the wider landscape.
9. The landscaping to the south and east of the chalet comprises poorly maintained heritage gardens. I concur with Mr Patrick's proposition that the heritage values of the chalet can be substantially enhanced by the reinstatement and augmentation of a heritage landscape along Park Road from the southeast to the southwest of the chalet building. The heritage landscaping could comprise medium sized and lower level ornamental plants of the era of the 1920s and 1930s such as lobellias, pinoaks, hebes and lavender. Canopy trees would provide continuity with the bushy roadside vegetation along Park Road.
10. It is my view that the proposed landscaping will improve the site and create a continuous bushy character along Park Road that will augment and complement the heritage chalet.
11. I concur with a number of improvements recommended by Mr Patrick to the draft landscape plan. These include replacing proposed concrete ramps in the central courtyard with timber ramps and decks and requiring tree protection barriers to be installed around trees to be retained. Onsite water retention should be implemented. These matters will be addressed in the permit conditions.
12. In my view, the site's context leads me to conclude that this proposal will comfortably fit into the character of the area. That character is predominantly formed by the frontages to Park Road. I draw this conclusion because:
    • I do not think that this site and the nearby lots form a distinct landscape that is particularly special or has special environmental qualities that lead me to say that a larger, more dense form is so out of context to adversely impact on the appearance of the locality.
    • Nearby dwellings are substantial.
    • The chalet is a large building.
    • The school, shops and petrol station have limited setbacks to Park Road and create an urban façade to the road.
    • This section of Park Road has a largely urban form, with many dwellings presenting high fences on the Park Road frontage.
    • There would be sufficient mature vegetation left on the site to partially screen the building.
13. In my view a large built form can sit in this context provided that it has generous setbacks and dense and effective landscaping that integrates well with the prevailing landscaping along Park Road and at the perimeters of adjoining dwellings.
14. Giving some weight to the policies relating to need and housing diversity, I am satisfied that the site is an appropriate location for a residential aged care facility given its proximity to a neighbourhood activity centre and community facilities, and that its built form will fit into this neighbourhood.

1. The adjoining lots to the east, north and west are occupied by dwellings. The adjoining dwellings to the west are set back 2 metres and 9.5 metres from the common boundary. The dwellings to the east are set back 5 metres and 12 metres from that boundary. The dwellings to the north have substantial setbacks from the common boundary.
2. The proposed development would have the following setbacks from the respective boundaries:
   • To the west boundary, 5 to 8.5 metres at ground level and 8 metres at the first floor.
   • To the north boundary, 5 metres to 7.8 metres at ground floor and 5 metres to 33 metres at the first floor.
   • To the east boundary, 7 metres to 25 metres at ground floor and 11 metres to 25 metres at first floor.

A 2 metres high solid fence is proposed to be erected on all boundaries.

1. In general, the built form of the proposed building has been located adjacent to the dwellings on the adjoining properties. The landscape areas have also been located to be opposite, or to complement the landscape areas on the adjoining lots.
2. The first floor is stepped back significantly from the northeast corner to minimise overlooking and visual bulk to the dwelling on the adjoining lots. A roof deck above the ground level is provided to the northeast corner.
3. As the land is to the south of adjoining lots, and has substantial setbacks to the lots to the east, it does not impose any shadows on those adjoining dwellings or private open space. The building would cast a shadow in the morning to the dwellings to the west. The extent of overshadowing is no more than would be cast by a solid fence. In my view, the proposed development does not impose any adverse impacts on its neighbours through overshadowing.
4. Overlooking from the ground floor of the proposed development to the neighbours would be minimised by the two metre high fence and landscaping on the boundaries.
5. Some overlooking is possible from the first floor, particularly from the roof terrace to the northeast boundaries. If I apply the standard at B22 of clause 55 as a guide, some screening should be installed to minimise views into the private open spaces of the adjoining lots to the northeast. The rear yard of 16 Arundel Road is particularly open and able to be viewed. Council proposes that the glass balustrades be set back a greater distance from these boundaries. I think that the privacy of the adjoining lots can be protected by the requirement to install glazing or screening, rather than undoing the integrated design of that part of the building.
6. The final possible adverse impact is visual bulk seen from the adjoining lots. The dwellings to the north and east are on land that is lower than the review site. With effective landscaping and the proposed setbacks, I am confident that the proposed building would have limited visibility from those dwellings.
7. In respect to nos. 2 and 4 Arundel Road, I consider that the proposed setbacks are adequate to minimise the visual bulk of a two storey building. I also note that two storey dwellings are commonplace in this area, and a two storey dwelling could have been built with setbacks as proposed.
8. I am satisfied that the proposed development has been designed to be a polite and good neighbour, and it would have minimal adverse impacts.

1. Two heritage experts thought that the development was overbearing and disrespectful, and one heritage expert thought the adaptive re-use to be appropriate.
2. The Park Orchards Chalet was built in 1929 as the first stage of a large residential estate. The estate extended over 650 acres and was intended to comprise half acre lots clustered around the chalet and sporting facilities. The estate was designed by notable town planer Saxil Tuxun. The chalet was to be the sales office and the recreation centre for the growing residential estate. However, sales of residential lots were slow due to the Great Depression, and the estate was not developed as planned.
3. The chalet was used for afternoon teas and functions. In World War II it was occupied by the military and used for training. After the war, it was used as a restaurant, and in 1968 the rear courtyard was enclosed. It has been used as a restaurant until approximately four years ago when it was closed. It is presently unoccupied. The resident submitters have a great attachment to the chalet as a place that has been an important focal point of the community.
4. The heritage citation cites the chalet as being of local heritage significance.

The former Park Orchards Country Club Club House (the Chalet) is of local historic and aesthetic significance to Manningham City. Historically the chalet is significant as evidence of the failed Park Orchards Country Club, which is an early (perhaps first) example of a planned residential estate within the study area. It is the only building associated with the development to survive. Aesthetically the chalet is significant as an unusual example of a Spanish mission style building[11].

1. A proposal to include the chalet on the Victorian heritage register was rejected by the executive director of Heritage Council of Victoria[12]. The grounds of refusal noted that the architect of the chalet is unknown, there are already outstanding examples of Spanish mission buildings, and the building is of local value[13]. The building is not included on the register of the National Trust.
2. It is proposed to retain the front and middle sections of the building and to demolish the two rear wings from the rear (northern) roof. The sections to be demolished comprise approximately one third of the building. It is also proposed to remove various plant and equipment that has been located on the roof. The external appearance of the retained parts of the building would remain unaltered. The internal layout of the retained building would also remain largely unchanged.
3. I am required to consider two issues in relation to the chalet, firstly, should the rear wings be demolished, and secondly, does the new building sit well with the chalet. Clauses 43.01 (heritage overlay) and 21.11, and local policy 22.03 guide my decision on these proposals. The local policy discourages the demolition of parts of a heritage building unless:

... the structures are unsound, demolition relates to non original or non contributory fabric and an appropriate replacement building is proposed.

1. In respect of the demolition of the rear wings, Mr Beeston and Mr Trethowan thought that the extent of demolition would remove parts of the building that contribute to its heritage significance. Mr Trethowan thought that the demolition could be supported provided that there was considerable effort put into the restoration of the original fabric. He was particularly keen to see the original courtyard, retention of the eastern wing and restoration of the internal finishes and fittings. Mr Trethowan thought that insufficient weight was given to the cultural significance of the chalet as part of the merging town planning movement of the 1920s. Mr Beeston sought the retention of the two rear wings. In his view they are significant as they contribute to the completeness of the building. As the western wing is visible from Park Road, retention of the whole of the rear wings is appropriate as the building was designed to be viewed 'in the round'.
2. Mr Raworth put that the rear wings are not significant. He put that the chalet as a whole is a good, but not outstanding example of a Spanish mission building. He put that there is ambiguity between the front and rear parts of the building. The front part is solid, constructed of masonry and fully consistent with the Spanish mission motif. The rear wings are a lightweight construction, comprise roughcast materials, and are Spanish mission only by association. The windows and walls are generic in style and do not contain Spanish mission detail or style. He suggested that it is possible that the rear wings may have been constructed in the mid 1930s as a later stage, a proposition hotly contested by council and the residents. Even allowing that the rear wings may have been constructed at the same time as the front building, Mr Raworth advised that their removal would be acceptable. They provide a 'shadowy backdrop' to the heritage building and they are not contributory. They were not, in his view designed to be seen 'in the round' or be a significant part of the chalet. He submitted that it is not uncommon for the rear parts of a heritage building to be demolished.
3. There was also considerable dispute as to the suitability of the new works adjacent to a heritage building. Both Mr Trethowan and Mr Beeston considered that they were too large, too prominent and disrespectful of the heritage fabric. Mr Beeston thought the additions to be 'rude' and Mr Trethowan thought the additions to be 'brutal'. Mr Beeston thought that the new wings should have a greater setback, and be more recessive. Both experts recommended a conservation plan that would require the restoration of the original fabric.
4. Mr Raworth thought that the proposed additions were appropriate and complied with the heritage overlay and local policy. In his view, the height of the development is similar to the chalet. The proposed additions are set back to enable the primary envelope of the chalet to remain visually dominant from the street. The new and old structures are well separated, and the new is distinguishable from and would not overwhelm the old. The new design would be acceptable because it is 'recessive, low key and the front of the heritage building continues to be the dominant building seen from Park Road'. Importantly he considers the proposed development would enable the chalet to be used on a long term sustainable basis. The reinstatement of a heritage landscape garden makes the chalet prominent from the public realm.
5. From the expert evidence and discussion at the hearing, it is clear that the building is of local significance[14]. I accept Mr Raworth's evidence that the building is a good, but not outstanding example of a Spanish mission building. The fact that it is one of few heritage buildings in Manningham does not require me to give it a greater weight than another building of local significance elsewhere. To do so would be to give it a greater heritage significance than it deserves.
6. It is not uncommon for only the parts of the heritage fabric that interfaces with the public domain to be conserved, and large additions to be added to the rear of heritage buildings. Furthermore, I give weight to the importance of finding a sustainable activity that would ensure the ongoing use and maintenance of the building. The proposed use of the land provides opportunities for continued public access and community involvement in the building. Furthermore I note that the three heritage experts agreed that the two storey built form was generally acceptable, the proposed materials were generally acceptable and the proposed use was acceptable from a heritage viewpoint. It was also agreed amongst the experts that the rear wings did not comprise an overtly Spanish mission motif or style.
7. The rear wings may or may not be original fabric, and I will assume that they are original. I note that the rear eastern wing is not visible from the public domain and I concur with Ms Brennan and Mr Raworth that it does not have an apparent or obvious Spanish mission motif. Given that the heritage significance of the building is local, and that this section is not part of the public domain, I have no difficulty with its demolition. Furthermore, I have no difficulty with the proposed two storey built form and the materials on the eastern elevation. The original fabric of the chalet will continue to be clearly distinguishable from the new development. I do not consider that whilst the new building is substantially larger than the chalet, it does not overwhelm or diminish the eastern elevation of the chalet.
8. I do not concur that the internal courtyard at the rear of the building should be reinstated. I accept the proposition that a balance needs to be struck between preserving the old and encouraging new use, and in my view, reinstatement of the courtyard would be an onerous requirement that would unreasonably diminish the operations of the aged care facility.

WOULD THE DEVELOPMENT ADEQUATELY PROVIDE FOR ITS TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING

1. Presently the site has two access points from Park Road, one from the southeast corner to an existing informal car park, and a second towards the southwest corner providing access to a service area.
2. Park Road is a two-lane road that functions as a collector road. It carries approximately 5,200 vehicles per day on weekdays. It has a 60kph speed limit except at school times.
3. Mr DeYoung estimated that the development would generate 26 movements in an hour and 182 vehicle movements per day. The development would increase traffic levels on Park Road by 3.5 percent. This is a marginal increase that would be barely noticeable. Park Road has capacity for a further 1,800 vehicle movements, and the projected increase in traffic is well within the design limits of Park Road.
4. The resident submitters put that Park Road experiences considerable congestion when the recreation facilities and the primary school are fully utilised. Mr DeYoung advised that this congestion would not coincide when the facility is generating traffic, mainly at the change of shifts. These would occur in the early morning (around 6.30am to 7.00am, mid afternoon 3.00pm to 4.00pm and in the evening 9.00pm to 10.00pm). Except for the mid afternoon shift change, the times of traffic generation are outside the periods of congestion. It is possible that the mid afternoon change of shift can be varied to occur outside the school pick-up period, or that staff leave at various times to spread out the additional traffic. The numbers of vehicles are relatively small, and over time I am confident that staff would soon identify the most convenient times to leave and/or accept that they may have to take some additional time to leave the premises safely[15]. I also note that the school drop-off area is in Bouman Street, some distance from the review site.
5. The location of the driveways does generate safety concerns. Park Road curves at the western end of the review site. Mr DeYoung estimated that a driver leaving the eastern crossover would have sight distances of 60 metres to the west and 150 metres to the east. The sightlines to the west just comply with the sightline design standards. I concur with Mr DeYoung's suggestion that a sign be installed on the western approach to warn drivers of a concealed driveway.
6. Car parking is required to be provided at a rate of one car space per lodging room, hence 91 spaces are required to meet the requirements of the scheme. It is proposed to provide car parking for 30 vehicles, hence approval is sought to reduce the number of car spaces. Mr DeYoung supported the reduction of car parking on the following basis:
   • Car parking surveys completed by GTA consultants indicate that a rate of 0.31 spaces per bed including staff and visitors is reasonable.
   • Twenty-nine spaces would exceed the provision of car parking required by the RTANSW guide to traffic generating developments which would require 20 spaces, mainly for staff.
   • Clause 22.04 requires the provision of one space per three beds or 0.33 spaces per bed which requires 30 car spaces.
7. I am satisfied that in a residential aged care facility, the car parking demand will be largely generated by staff and visitors. Residents would be highly unlikely to operate a vehicle. I consider that the provision of 30 car spaces would be satisfactory.
8. The proposed development generates a statutory demand for 14 bicycle spaces. Six bicycle parking spaces are to be provided with one shower and change room. As the bicycle facilities would be used by staff and visitors, I am satisfied that six spaces would be adequate to meet the expected demand.
9. It is proposed to continue to use the service delivery drive located on the southwest corner of the chalet building. This would be restricted to a left-in, left-out movement. The location of the service delivery driveway is not ideal, but is sensible from an operational viewpoint. I consider that a six metre driveway is too large and diminishes the landscaping opportunities. I think that the driveway can be reduced to a width of four metres.

WOULD THE DEVELOPMENT PROVIDE SATISFACTORY AMENITY FOR ITS FUTURE RESIDENTS?

1. There is little direction in the scheme regarding the internal amenity attributes of an aged care facility. They should be designed to enhance access and movement for people with limited mobility. Adequate provision should be made for indoor and outdoor recreation including sufficient weather protection. A facility should include private and communal open space areas[16]. These amenities are provided in this facility.
2. I am satisfied that the proposed facility would provide reasonable amenity for its residents. I note that most of the residents would be high care, suggesting that most would have limited mobility or independence. The facility provides outdoor courtyards for residents, visitors and staff, and these would enjoy access to the northern sun and provide a high level of amenity. Areas for activities and informal meeting areas are provided throughout the building, as well as communal dining areas. The building would have a flat footprint to enable people with limited mobility to move throughout the building. Nurses' stations are distributed throughout the facility to enable staff to be in close attendance to the residents. I am satisfied that the facility is designed to provide its residents with comfortable and convenient living.

DO ANY OTHER MATTERS WARRANT REJECTION OF THE PROPOSAL?

1. The policy framework requires me to consider the disposal of wastewaters. A development of this size must be connected to a reticulated sewer. Presently reticulated sewer is not available in Park Orchards. There was considerable uncertainty regarding the availability of sewer. Mr Montebello thought that Yarra Valley Water has scheduled to bring sewer to Park Orchards by 2015/2016. Mr Radisich thought that sewer might be provided by 2014/15, and that this date might change as the authority's capital works program was updated.
2. Mr Blackley's report advised that sewer would be available by 2013/2014, and there is an option for sewer to be connected earlier if the developer was prepared to pay costs associated with bringing the works forward of the scheduled programme.
3. Ms Brennan tabled correspondence from Yarra Valley Water dated 27 July 2010 that offered to connect to reticulated sewer at connection point LMC22 (near the Carey Baptist Grammar School Donvale campus), provided that the developer pays 22.02 percent of the design and construction costs. If the developer accepts this share of the costs, the site can be connected to reticulated sewer in 2010/2011. Ms Brennan advised that the developer would accept the costs and connect the site to sewer. This can be made a condition of permit.
4. I am satisfied that the site can be provided with reticulated sewer in a reasonably timely manner and that the provision of reticulated sewer would not be a determinate issue that would require me to refuse the application[17].
5. Several other matters were raised in submissions and the objections originally lodged with the council including safety from bushfires, evacuation procedures and internal design matters, water pressure, noise from plant and equipment and the previous actions of the owners. None of these matters persuade me that the permit application should be rejected or that conditions should be imposed.

WHAT ARE MY CONCLUSIONS FROM THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS?

1. On balance and considering the entirety of the planning policy framework, I conclude that the proposal is acceptable as:
   • The facility is needed in the Manningham and Park Orchards area.
   • The use is appropriate in a low density residential zone.
   • It is a good location for an aged care facility given its proximity to the neighbourhood activity centre.
   • It will have a larger built form than seen in the area, however this is acceptable because it is a necessary facility that requires a larger form, and it is in a part of Park Road that also has a more intensive built form.
   • The two storey scale, siting, setbacks and materials of the new building are acceptable in heritage and neighbourhood character terms.
   • The dominant trees are retained, the Monterey pines are recognised, and there will be substantial replacement planting.
   • The perimeters will be well screened.
   • Most of the chalet is retained, including part of the western façade that is a prominent visual façade to Park Road.
   • The rear wings are non contributory or less significant and their removal will not diminish the heritage values of the front building.
   • It provides a sustainable use of a heritage building, and enables some continued community involvement in the building.
   • The provision of car parking is adequate.
   • Park Road can readily accommodate the additional traffic, and sightlines are adequate.
   • It will provide adequate amenity for its residents, visitors and the staff.
   • Sewer can be provided to the land ahead of its use.
2. I consider that some changes are required to improve the integration of the development into the neighbourhood, particularly the interface to Park Road.
3. I consider that the western end of the façade to Park Road should have greater setback to the frontage. At 5.9 metres, and given the rise in the topography of the land adjacent to Park Road, it is my view that there should be a transition from the setback of the dwelling at 2 Arundel Road to the lesser setback of the chalet. A greater setback will also improve the opportunities for landscaping of this important first visual interface between Park Road and the chalet from the west. I will require that the western end of the front façade (rooms 29 to 31 and 37 to 40) be set back at least eight metres to be consistent with the adjoining dwelling.
4. I am concerned with the proposed service entry and driveway on the southwest side of the chalet. The driveway uses a large area of the frontage, and locating a service area in the front setback of a building is highly unusual. I would prefer that the service driveway be located on the east side of the chalet so the service driveway could be used for landscaping.
5. However, I note that whilst it is tempting to change the design and require the service road to be moved to the eastern side, that change would be likely to have significant implications for the internal layout of the ground floor. It would also affect the layout of the car parking area and the landscaping on the eastern boundary. I have to be cautious about imposing changes without the benefit of submissions about the consequences of such changes.
6. I will therefore leave the service road largely unchanged. I think that a one-way service lane of six metres is unnecessary and will require it to be reduced to four metres. I would encourage the applicant to consider operating with only one access point or relocating it to the east side of the chalet.
7. Ms Brennan submitted at the hearing that the visual bulk of the front façade could be diminished by adding recesses and breaks into that façade. I agree with her proposal to delete two rooms at both the ground and first floors. The deletion of rooms 32, 33, 40 and 41, opposite the windows that face the internal courtyard improve the visual connections between Park Road and the three red gums, and lessen the visual bulk of the building to the front.
8. I have carefully considered the desirability of retaining all of the western façade of the chalet, given that it is a prominent façade to Park Road. To do so would increase the separation of the old and new, and would retain more of the chalet's fabric. I think that it would however, severely affect the proposed layout of the development, particularly at the first floor. I am uncertain of the effects of the changes and am unable to prepare conditions that provide certainty about the expected outcomes to be achieved. On balance I am satisfied that the proposal retains most of the western façade, the old and new are clearly distinguishable and the parts to be removed make a minimal contribution to the heritage place.
9. I am satisfied that with some modifications, the development will meet a growing need in Manningham, fit into the neighbourhood, be a sustainable use, and provide a net benefit to the community.

1. It follows from the above reasons that it is my conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside and a permit granted.
2. The permit will include conditions that have regard to the submissions and evidence of the parties, and the matters that arise from my reasons.

The use and development of the land for the purpose of an Aged Care Facility including the partial demolition of the existing building, removal of vegetation and reduction of car and bicycle parking in accordance with the endorsed plans.

1. Before the use and development starts, three 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. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (prepared by Baldasso Cortese Architects, Ref. 20070882, Revision B dated 12/02/09) but modified to show:
   • (a) Location of all on site plant and service equipment, including on the roof of the building, to be designed and located so that it is screened from view to a maximum height of 1.2m and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
   • (b) Modification to the southern facade of the building to:
     • Delete rooms 32 and 33 on the ground floor and rooms 40 and 41 on the first floor.
     • Increase the setback of rooms 29 to 31 and 37 to 39 to 8 metres from Park Road.
   • (c) Plan notations to reflect pruning of trees to be retained, in accordance with submitted arborist report;
   • (d) The northern and eastern sides of the first floor terrace must include obscure screening or battens with 25 percent transparency, with planter boxes to be placed on the outside of the glass balustrade areas;
   • (e) A plan notation that the planter boxes on the first floor terrace must be planted with shrubs capable of screening to a height at maturity of 1.5m, with species and spread noted on the landscape plan;
   • (f) Details on the restoration of the roofing tiles and removal of obsolete roof mounted plant from the existing building;
   • (g) Plan notations to indicate exterior repainting of the existing building must be carried out in original colours, according to professional heritage advice and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
   • (h) The elevation of the rear west wing amended to ensure the wall cladding (possibly asbestos) is replaced to match the existing appearance in cement sheet, and the original joinery (arched doorway, door and 3 large multipaned windows) is retained;
   • (i) Details of external lighting to be installed to provide for safety of occupants and staff of the building and surveillance of open space areas;
   • (j) Demonstration of a clear sight distance of pedestrians for exiting vehicles as per Clause 3.2.4 of AS 2890.1;
   • (k) All earthworks in front embankment required for access points;
   • (l) Demonstration of compliance with AS 2890.1 for all car parking spaces, aisle widths and internal access roads;
   • (m) The nomination of one disabled parking bay to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
   • (n) The location of an entry and exit sign to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
   • (o) Any changes necessary as a result of approval of the Management Plans prepared under Condition 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this Permit; and
2. The layout of the site and the size of buildings and works shown on the approved plan must not be modified for any reason, without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. Before the development starts, including any demolition, earthworks or vegetation removal, a letter of agreement/confirmation must be obtained from Yarra Valley Water demonstrating that reticulated sewerage will be available to the property prior to the occupation of the building, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Before the development starts, including any demolition, earthworks or vegetation removal, three copies of an amended Sustainability Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will form part of the permit. The plan must address, but not be limited to, the following:
   • (a) Identify how the development will achieve the sustainability objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement;
   • (b) Identify responsibilities and timings for achieving the above objectives;
   • (c) Identify key performance indicators which give effect to the relevant policy and statutory obligations;
   • (d) Demonstrate that the design elements, technologies and operational practices that comprise the Sustainability Management Plan can be maintained over time;
   • (e) Include as Individual components of the Sustainability Management Plan
     • Building Energy Management;
     • Water Sensitive Urban Design;
     • Construction Materials; and
     • Indoor Environmental Quality;
5. Before the development starts, including any demolition, earthworks or vegetation removal, three copies of a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will form part of the permit. The plan must address, but not be limited to, the following:
   • (a) Hours of demolition and construction;
   • (b) Methods to contain dust, dirt and mud within the site, and the method and frequency of clean up procedures;
   • (c) On site facilities for vehicle washing;
   • (d) The protection measures for site features to be retained (e.g. vegetation, retaining walls, buildings, other structures and pathways, etc);
   • (e) Delivery and unloading points and expected frequency;
   • (f) A liaison officer for contact by residents and the Responsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced;
   • (g) The movement of construction vehicles to and from the site must be regulated to ensure that no traffic hazards are created in and around the site;
   • (h) Parking facilities for construction workers;
   • (i) Measures to minimise the impact of construction vehicles arriving at and departing from the land;
   • (j) An outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, and anticipated disruptions to local services;
   • (k) The processes to be adopted for the separation, re-use and recycling of demolition materials;
   • (l) The measures to minimise the amount of waste construction materials; the provision for the recycling of demolition and waste materials; and the return of waste materials to the supplier (where the supplier has a program of reuse or recycling);
   • (m) The measures to minimise noise and other amenity impacts from mechanical equipment and demolition/construction activities, especially outside of daytime hours;
   • (n) The provision of adequate environmental awareness training for all on-site contractors and sub contractors; and
   • (o) An agreed schedule of compliance inspections.
6. Before the development starts, including any demolition, earthworks or vegetation removal, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will form part of the permit. The Plan must include, but not limited to the following:
   • (a) The size and location for the storage of general waste and recyclables on the ground/basement floor and details of screening from view.
   • (b) A plan showing that the storage area is sufficient to cater for the number of bins,
   • (c) Details of ventilation if garbage bins are in enclosed areas;
   • (d) Design details of the built-in waste/recycling system for the building indicating the provision made for the separate disposal of garbage and recycling streams.
   • (e) The consideration of the ease of taking the fully laden bins to the collection point(s).
   • (f) Private contractor options, if applicable, detailing the methods of collection with regard to site and road network constraints and the potential requirement to manoeuvre garbage trucks including a collection plan approved by the proposed collection agencies that meets Council's Waste Management Plan.
   • (g) Confirmation of the hours and frequency of pick-up for general and recyclable waste, with regard to potential noise impacts to the surrounding neighbourhood.
7. Before the development starts, including any demolition, earthworks or vegetation removal a Disability Access Plan that implements the recommendations of a Disability Access Audit, prepared by a suitably qualified person that demonstrates compliance with the relevant Australian Standards for access, including AS1428 Part 2, must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will form part of the permit. The plans must include but is not limited to:
   • (a) Vehicular and pedestrian access into the building;
   • (b) Access to the lifts;
   • (c) The provision of tactile indicators;
   • (d) The provision of Braille indicators for the lifts;
   • (e) The use of contrasting paving materials to assist the vision impaired;
   • (f) Emergency exits, particularly above the ground floor; and
   • (g) Car parking.
8. Before the development starts, including any demolition, earthworks or vegetation removal, an amended landscaping plan must be submitted to the responsible authority for approval, showing species, locations, approximate height and spread of proposed planting and in particular, such plan must:
   • (a) Provide appropriate landscaping treatments in the front and side setback areas of the chalet building, including front vehicular entrance, to reflect its heritage significance.
   • (b) Provide the replacement planting of a minimum 174 indigenous plants as offsets (of which at least 26 must be indigenous canopy trees) on the site.
   • (c) Incorporate the planting required by conditions 1.2.4, 1.3 and 1.5 of this permit.
     • Incorporate the recommendations in the statement of evidence by Mr John Patrick dated June 2010 to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal including the inclusion of tree protection zones and barrier, replacement of concrete ramps in central courtyard with timber ramps and decks and a mix of species including exotic plants in the Park Road frontage reflecting a heritage garden.
9. The Management Plans approved under conditions 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this permit must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority.
10. The owner must provide on site storm water detention storage, to limit the Permissible Site Discharge (PSD) to that applicable to the site coverage of 35 percent of hard surface or the pre existing hard surface if it is greater than 35 percent. The PSD must meet the following requirements:
    • (a) Be designed for a 1 in 5 year storm; and
    • (b) Storage must be designed for 1 in 10 year storm.
11. Before the development starts, construction plans for the on site storm water detention storage system must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The detention system must be maintained thereafter in accordance with construction plans by the owner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12. Before the development starts, including any demolition, earthworks or vegetation removal, an amended landscaping plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval, showing species, locations, approximate height and spread of proposed planting and in particular, such plan must:
    • (a) Provide appropriate landscaping treatments in the front and side setback areas of the Chalet building, including front vehicular entrance, to reflect its heritage significance;
    • (b) Provide the replacement planting of a minimum 174 indigenous plants as offsets (of which at least 26 must be indigenous canopy trees) on the site.
    • (c) Incorporate the planting required by Condition 1.2.4, 1.3 and 1.5 of this permit; and
    • (d) Provide additional planting along the eastern boundary fence within car park to provide for small and large shrubs.
13. Before the occupation of the building hereby permitted, connection for sewer must be operational to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14. Before the occupation of the building hereby permitted, a sign must be placed in Park Road to the west of the curve, notifying east bound drivers of a concealed driveway.
15. Before the occupation of the building hereby permitted, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
16. Before the release of the approved plan, a $10,000 cash bond or bank guarantee must be lodged with the Responsible Authority to ensure the completion and maintenance of landscaped areas and such bond or bank guarantee will only be refunded or discharged after a period of 13 weeks from the completion of all works, provided the landscaped areas are being maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
17. Before the construction of vehicle crossings, the applicant is to obtain a Miscellaneous Works Permit and construct the crossings to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
18. Redundant vehicle crossovers must be removed and the footpath, nature strip and kerbing reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
19. The whole of the land, including landscaped and paved areas must be graded and drained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, to prevent ponding and to minimise overland flows onto adjoining properties.
20. An in-ground, automatic watering system linked to rainwater tanks on the land must be installed to the main garden areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
21. All engineering works relating to access, parking and drainage must be carried out in accordance with detailed construction plans approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of site works.
22. Entry and exit signs must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
23. All car spaces must be line marked and must not be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles.
24. The parking area must be sign posted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
25. The Owner shall pay the full costs of all roadworks, service relocations, drainage, and other costs associated with the development.
26. The collection of garbage from the premises (other than Manningham City Council collection) must be conducted between the hours of 8.00 am to 6.00 pm Mondays to Fridays to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
27. Plant rooms must be designed and operated to ensure that minimal loss of amenity occurs to residents by way of mechanical or exhaust noise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
28. All noise emanating from any mechanical plant (air conditioners etc.) on the site must comply with the relevant Environment Protection Authority standards.
29. External lighting must be designed to limit loss of amenity to residents of adjoining properties, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
30. Once the permitted development has commenced it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
31. Buildings, paved areas, engineering works, fences, landscaping and all external areas must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
32. Any low impact telecommunications facility must be located in or immediately joining the plant or roof screened and of a colour to reduce its visibility to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
33. All services, including water, electricity, gas, sewerage and telephone, must be installed underground and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
34. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances apply:
    • (a) The development is not started within two (2) years of the date of the issue of this permit; and
    • (b) The development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit.

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

[1] I have considered all submissions presented by the parties although I do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.

[2] Manningham City Council Community Profile - How Old Are We (2001-2006)?

[4] Information provided from funding application submitted by Residential Aged Services funding submission to Department of Health and Ageing.

[5] Ageing Well in Manningham 2006-2010

[6] [1997] VCAT 209

[7] See Cambrai Pty Ltd v Geelong CC [2002] VACT 1048, Lineus May Nominees Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC 22 AATR 248, 253

[11] Heritage citation Manningham HO129 Victorian Heritage Database

[12] Letter from Executive Director Heritage Victoria dated 15 June 2010

[13] An appeal has been lodged to contest the decision of the executive director

[14] I must assess this application on the basis of the citations at this time

[15] I note that the chalet has been used as a restaurant for up to several hundred people. This use would generate more traffic than the aged care facility, which has a relatively low generation of traffic.

[17] I determined in the hearing that I did not need to hear from Mr Blackley regarding the provision of reticulated services as the correspondence from Yarra Valley water tabled by Ms Brennan demonstrated that reticulated sewer could be provided to the site.