Mr. Andrew Samios, Mrs. Debbie Samios, Ms. Fiona Gault and Mr. De. Silva appeared in person. Ms. Fiona Gault called Mr. Bill Sezenias to give evidence on the traffic conditions of Jordan Street.

1 This is an Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against the Monash City Council's refusal to grant a permit to use and develop 7A Jordan Street, Ashwood, for a 60 place childcare centre. The grounds of refusal were:

• The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives of the State Planning Policy Framework.

• The proposed development does not satisfy the purpose, intent and objectives of the Local Planning Policy Framework.

• The proposed development is out of character with the existing development in the area in particular with regard to design and scale.

• The proposed development has an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties.

• The location of the subject site is inappropriate for the proposed development.

• The proposal is inappropriate having regard to the proper and orderly planning of the area.

•

The proposed Childcare responds to increase demand for Childcare facilities in the wider community.

•

Sufficient car par is provided on site, and a widened crossover enables two directional movements of cars to enter and exit the site in a forward direction. As supported by Ratio Consultant, our scheme has little impact on the existing traffic flow on Jordan Street.

•

The proposed childcare is respectful to the character of the existing surrounding buildings: the wide street setback is retained; the height is in keeping with the surrounding buildings and steps down in following the natural fall of the landscape; and materials and finishes proposed are complimentary to the surrounding residential character.

•

The propose childcare is appropriate in its context: the centre is located in close proximity to a main road (High Street Rd) and a frequently used feeder road (Jordan St); the Centre is in walking distance of an education precinct with easy access to public transport.

3 At the commencement of the hearing, Ms. Gault requested that Mr. Bill Sezenias, local resident, be called to give evidence. Mr. Bisset submitted that no statement has been received from Mr. Sezenias and it is difficult to ascertain whether his evidence may give rise to a need to seek further views. If as a result of this evidence that the matter is adjourned, there is the matter of cost.

4 The Tribunal indicated that it is prepared to hear Mr. Sezenias' evidence as a lay person. His evidence is confined to facts and his observation of traffic in Jordan Street. Should his evidence give rise to Mr. Bisset requiring further advice, Mr. Bisset would have the opportunity to make further submissions.

5 In the gallery was Mr. Paul Morris, an estate agent from Ray White Estate Agent. He was recently appointed as the selling agent of No. 9 Jordan Street. He requested that the owner of No. 9 Jordan Street be joined as party to the proceeding. His client is elderly, in a nursing home and was unlikely to be aware of the proposal next door when the notice of the application was given. The proposed childcare centre would impact negatively on the amenity and sale of this property.

6 Mr. Bisset objected to joining Mr. Morris, on behalf of No. 9 Jordan Street, as party. That the owner of the property may be elderly, the owner's son is not. It is often that other family members would attend to the affairs of the elderly. No. 9 Jordan Street did not object to the application. This lack of objection has influenced his client's way of preparing the case. The only reason why No. 9 Jordan Street wished to be joined as party is because Ms. Gault has contacted them. If No. 9 were joined as party, he would initiate an adjournment to the hearing and seek cost.

7 Having considered the request and Mr. Bisset's submission, I agree that Mr. Morris should not be joined as party. No. 9 Jordan Street directly abuts the review site to the south. It did not object to the application when notice was given. It did not contact the Tribunal, submit a statement of grounds, or has expressed any concern about the proposal. It has no involvement in the process. To request to be joined as party on the day of hearing with no prior warning is not appropriate. The Tribunal declined to join him as party. Mr. Morris departed from the hearing.

8 Mr. S. De Silva of No. 1 Wugga Court, a dead-end street near the review site, also requested to be joined as party. Mr. De Silva was an original objector but did not submit a statement of grounds. There was no objection from parties to join him as party. Leave was granted to join Mr. De Silva as party to this proceeding.

9 Mr. and Mrs. Andrew and Debbie Samios requested to be heard first, as they have time constraints. With the consent of the parties, the order of submissions was altered as requested.

10 The review site is located on the west side of Jordan Street between Mulgrave Street and High Street Road, Ashwood. It is regular in shape with a frontage of 18.517 metres, a depth of 62.79 metres, and a site area of 1163 square metres. It is developed with a single storey weatherboard house.

11 Development in Jordan Street is detached houses, except towards the northern end and on the east side of the street where a place of worship is located. Immediately abutting the review site are single storey detached houses.

12 Jordan Street is a relatively short street. Two dead-end streets, Wugga and Eileen Courts, run off the east side of the street. At the northern end at the intersection with High Street road is a set of traffic signals. It is evident from submissions, Mr. Fairlie's evidence and the Tribunal's inspection, that Jordan Street is used as a northbound and left turn cut-through into High Street Road. This set of traffic signals, as Ms. Moser submitted, was originally installed to facilitate traffic around the complex of schools on the north side of High Street Road on both sides of Vannam Drive. The west side of Vannam Drive at the corner of High Street Road previously contained the Ashwood Primary School and the Ashwood Technical College. These two schools have since closed and subdivided for residential development.

13 The proposal is to develop the site for a single storey building for use as a 60 place childcare facility. The building will contain four areas: one for 0-1 year olds for 10 infants, one for 2 year olds for 15 children, one for 3 year olds for 15 children, and one for 4 year olds for 20 children. A separate area towards the front of the building provides for a reception area, kitchen, laundry, staff room and a disabled toilet.

14 The three and four year old rooms open onto an extensive deck at the rear. Beyond this deck is their playground. There are other decks accessible from the 2 year old, and the 0 to1 year old rooms. The north side and front gardens of the development can also be used as recreation and play areas for the 0 to 1 year olds.

15 The building is set 23.9 metres from the front, 9.294 metres from the rear, and built to the side boundaries where the staff room and disabled toilets are located on the southern boundary, and the four-year-old room on the northern boundary. The front setback area is to be developed for the car parking for the centre, comprising of twelve (12) 90o angle parking spaces off a central driveway. The car parking area commences 3.05 metres from the front on the south side and 7.4 metres on the north side.

16 An entry canopy with a cable roof facing the street is located above the rear half of the central driveway and set is 14.845 metres from the front.

17 The design of the building is modern and low profile.

18 The premises will be secured by a 1.5 metre high metal fence with an open design at the front, another 1.5 metre high fence accompanied with the planting of creepers underneath the entry canopy.

19 The proposed childcare use would, according to Ms. Xenidis involve 10 permanent staff and 2 casual relief staff. The centre will be open from 7:00am to 6:00pm. Council's understanding is that it is open from 7:00 am to 6:30 pm.

20 The review site is located in the Residential 1 Zone of the Monash Planning Scheme (the "Scheme"). A child-minding centre is a section 2 use in the zone. Permit is required for the use and development in the zone.

21 Relevant Planning Policies:

•

Clause 11.03-1 Settlement

•

Clause 11.03-6 Social Needs

•

Clause 18.02 Car Parking and Public Transport Access to Development

•

Clause 21.04 Residential

•

Clause 22.01 Local Policy: Residential Development and Character Policy

•

Clause 22.05 Tree Conservation Policy

22 At the hearing, parties made written and oral submissions. Witnesses called to give evidence were made available for cross-examination. Various additional documents tabled at the hearing, such as the proposed Clause 22.09 of Amendment C55, decisions by other divisions of the Tribunal, photographs, Council's own parking guide and its "Discretionary Uses Policy for Residential C Zone" policy, are kept on file.

23 I also indicated that I would inspect the site before arriving at a decision. Apart from inspecting the site and its immediate environs, I also inspected a number of childcare centres in the City of Monash listed in a folder submitted by Ms. Xenidis. These are centres which have similar characteristics to the proposal in terms of similar number of children, mid-block and residential street locations. They are: Monash Children's Centre at 62 Beddoe Avenue, Clayton; Bright Beginnings Child Care Centre, Columbia Park Child Care Centre at 28A Columbia Park Dr., Wheelers Hill; Brine Street Child Care Centre at 33 Brine Street, Hughesdale; St. Dominic Savio Child Care Centre at 19 Donald Street, Clayton; and Koala Childcare and Early Learning Centre at 11 Marianne Way, Mount Waverley. I paid particular attention to the manner of parents dropping off and picking up children during morning an afternoon peaks. Apart from these nominated centres, I also inspected other centres that have a main road location and the Ashwood Children's Centre at 6-8 Yooralla Street, Ashwood.

24 Having heard the submissions and evidence, inspected the site and the child care centres nominated above, and reviewed the Monash Planning Scheme, I agree with Council's refusal of the proposal. The issues I find that assist me in arriving at that conclusion are whether the proposed use has policy support, whether the proposed use would affect the residential amenity and character of the area, whether the siting of the building and car parking acceptable in terms of neighbourhood character, and whether there would be negative impact on the efficiency of Jordan Street.

25 In the review of policies affecting the site, there are two aspects: the proposed childcare use and the siting and design of the development in terms of neighbourhood character.

26 With regard to the proposed use, Ms. Moser relied on Amendment C55, which proposes to introduce a new Clause 22.09. This clause is to introduce policies for the use and development of non-residential development in the Mixed Use, Residential 1 and 2 zones.

27 She submitted that this amendment is a seriously entertained planning proposal and well advanced in the process. It has been on exhibition and is currently before the Minister for approval. Gauged from the Department of Sustainability and Environment's response, it is a matter of time that this amendment would be approved. There was no panel report as there was no submission received.

28 The objectives of this new policy are:

•

To ensure that development is appropriate having regard to the residential environment of the surrounds and that the amenity of neighbourhoods is not adversely affected by a business conducted in a residential rea.

•

To ensure that all built form in residential areas is respectful of residential character.

•

To ensure that adequate and well-located vehicle parking is provided for all new development.

•

Home based businesses be promoted having regard to local amenity considerations including the reasonable expectations of neighbourhoods in terms of traffic, car parking, privacy, noise and hours of operation.

•

Overspill from larger activity centres of centre-based uses such as large convenience restaurants be discouraged.

•

Non-residential uses be discouraged from establishing in heritage precincts and in lower order residential streets and cul-de-sacs.

•

Key regional assets be assisted to remain leading edge institutions through the on-going development of supportive physical, social and commercial environments.

•

New development be carefully designed and sited to complement the current character and satisfy the desired future character of residential areas.

•

Car parking satisfies the need of users without detriment to local amenity.

•

Traffic generated by a non-residential use is appropriate to the street and locality and will not adversely affect the existing traffic pattern.

•

Preparation of Master Plans be encouraged for key regional assets located on constrained sites.

30 This policy goes on to provide performance and locational criteria for non-residential uses and development in residential areas.

31 The pertinent locational criteria are:

•

Locate discretionary non-residential uses in residential areas adjacent to existing activity centres and on higher order and busier streets and roads, particularly on corner sites.

•

Avoid locating in heritage precincts and in lower order residential streets and cul-de-sacs.

•

Locate centre-based uses such as large convenience restaurants within larger activity centres.

•

Avoid a concentration of non-residential uses in any particularly area where the cumulative impact on residential amenity is unacceptable.

•

Provide appropriate buffers and interface between commercial residential and industrial land uses.

•

Apply creative design solutions that enhance the quality of all residential areas particularly in relation to streetscape issues, scale of buildings, provision of open space and setbacks to ensure adequate landscaping.

•

Take into account the existing and preferred character statements for Neighbourhood Character Type as described in the Monash Urban Character Urban Study 1997 (or as amended).

•

Maintain and enhance the established canopy tree environment through the municipality, continuing its significance in defining the garden city character of Monash.

•

Maintain a consistency of street setbacks and building heights with existing residential neighbourhood and residential scale.

•

Retain existing residential building wherever possible.

•

....

•

Provision of car parking to comply generally with Clause 52 and "A Guide to Car parking in Monash, City of Monash (13 May 2004 or as amended).

•

Avoid reliance upon on-street car parking.

•

Minimise disruption and nuisance to adjacent properties and the residential neighbourhood.

•

Landscaping consistent with garden character of the neighbourhood.

•

Buffering of car parking areas.

•

Retention of canopy trees.

35 Ms. Moser submitted that, as far as location is concerned, the proposal fails the locational criteria. It is not located on a higher order street. An appropriate buffer with the existing residential uses has not been provided.

36 Mr. Bisset argued that the Tribunal has consistently held that childcare centres are appropriate in the Residential Zone. He cited the Mornington Shire Council case (P579/2004) where the Tribunal observed that "a childcare centre, like a school, is quite a good example of the sort of use suitable to be located in a residential area".

37 His line of reasoning is that the proposed childcare centre is needed. In Australian Retirement Communities v Eltham Shire Council & Cuthbertson (1988) 1AAATR 305, that Tribunal found that need has been given greatest weight for a proposal that provide services and facilities for groups which may be socially disadvantaged, including child care facilities. Ms. Xenidis' evidence is that there is generally no vacancy in the childcare centres she has surveyed, and some have waiting lists. Mr. Bisset submitted that the residential development of approximately 240 dwellings nearby on Huntingdale Road would add to the need of childcare facilities.

38 In his view, the proposal generally meets Council's Discretionary Uses Policy 1997, a referenced document in the current Clause 21.04-4. It also meets the intent of the proposed Clause 22.09.

39 As for the location criteria for a busy street, Jordan Street is used extensive as a thoroughfare by vehicles travelling to High Street Road. It is also used as a bus route for some school buses. The use is encouraged by the existence of safe and convenient signalised access at the intersection with High Street Road. Jordan Street is a higher order road as described in

Clause 22.09.

40 My reading of the purpose of the Residential 1 Zone is that location of a childcare centre in this zone is not out of the question. The Residential 1 Zone caters for non-residential uses:

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

41 The operative word is "appropriate locations". Clause 22.09 advocates a location adjacent to existing activity centres and a higher order and busier streets and roads, particular corner sites.

42 The present case does not meet these two criteria: it is not adjacent to an activity centre, if the designation of activity centres of Melbourne 2030 is used. It is doubtful whether Jordan Street is a higher order and busier street.

43 The case cited in Mornington Peninsula is located in Nepean Highway and was considered to be an appropriate location for a childcare centre.

44 The debate is whether Jordan Street is a 'higher order' or 'busier' street.

45 Ms. Moser submitted that it is a local residential street. The through traffic currently using Jordan Street to access High Street Road is due to the signalised intersection at the northern end, originally to facilitate traffic between the north and south sides of High Street, at a time when both sides of Vannam Road were schools. This is no longer the case as the Ashwood Primary and Ashwood Technical College on the west side have closed and redeveloped for dwellings. Mr. Bisset submission and Mr. Fairlie's evidence is that it is a busy street. My inspection of Jordan Street is that it is a standard residential street with one non-residential use in a place of worship towards the northern end of the road. It is short, comprising of 20 properties facing it, but used as a cut-through road to access High Street Road. The volume of traffic is higher than that is expected of a local street of 20 properties because of the cut-through traffic.

46 It is poignant for Council to note that, in the absence of a hierarchy or classification of roads in the Scheme, there can be different interpretation of "higher order and busier streets and roads". The words 'higher' and 'busier' are comparative in nature, but comparative to what?

47 Mr. Fairlie's description of Jordan Street (Page 5 of his statement of evidence) is that "Jordan Street is a local street with a relatively narrow carriageway width of about 6.5 metres". It is subject to 2000 vehicles per day with a dominant north bound flow. There is a signalised intersection at the northern end to facilitate access into High Street Road.

48 In that case, Jordan Street is not a collector street within the meaning of the road hierarchy of Clause 56, or as indicated by the Melway, if Melway gives a general indication of the intensity of use. Under these circumstances, Jordan Street should not be regarded as a 'higher order' or 'busier' road of Clause 22.09.

49 Clause 22.09 also refers to the need for buffers. The proposal is for a use that involves the activity of 60 children maximum, their parents, 10 staff and other miscellaneous visitors (for example visitor health care workers to deliver immunisation) in one suburban house lot. Despite the fact that children may not cause unacceptable noise levels and that an acoustic fence is proposed, it is still a fairly intensive use in the 'hinterland' of a residential area. I note that the decks at the rear are 1.1 metres above the natural ground level, and there is no buffer between these decks and the gardens of No. 7 and 9 Jordan Street.

50 All the childcare centres I have inspected take up double blocks or at least have double lot widths. Many abut a buffer in a non-residential use such as a scout hall, a public reserve, a car park, or commercial premises. The Koala Childcare and Early Learning Centre at 11 Marianne Way, Mount Waverley is not double block or double width. It is located in a single suburban house block but abuts a small reserve on one side. Unlike these other centres, the review site is more constrained in that it has a single lot width with no buffer from abutting dwellings.

51 Regardless of the status of Amendment C55, the policy of locating non-residential uses along busy street and adjacent to non-residential uses in a residential area makes planning sense. I am not satisfied that the intensity of the proposed childcare centre contained within one house lot in a local residential street would not impact on the residential amenity and the residential character of Jordan Street.

52 The architect of the project Mr. Perkins' design of the centre is professional and competent, having particular regard to the internal circulation of movements, the use of space and use of design features that enhance the ambience and amenity of the occupiers. As far as the visual impact of the building is concerned, he made use of a number of design features to soften the appearance of the car park at the front of the building, such as a front garden, screening of cars, retention of existing trees, use of gravel for parking surface, a gabled entry canopy to project forward of the building "to tie in visually with the existing neighbours", and a second fence with climbing plants to screen the western most 6 car spaces.

53 Excellent as the design is, my role is to determine on the siting, scale and massing of the building, and whether they achieve the expected design and neighbourhood character outcome expressed in the policies of the Scheme.

54 The proposed single storey scale, low profile design, and limited on the boundary construction are consistent with the domestic scale of buildings in Jordan Street. It is the deep front setback and the visual dominance of the car parking that are at odds with the existing and preferred neighbourhood character cited in the Scheme.

55 The most relevant design policy for the site is Clause 22.01 Residential Development and Character Policy. This policy applies to all residential land in Monash except areas affected by a Heritage overlay. The objectives of this policy are to build on the Garden City Character of Monash, to encourage development to achieve design outcomes that contribute to the neighbourhood character having particular regard to the desired future character statement applicable for the designated Character Type.

56 In addition to this is the urban design criteria for non-residential uses in residential areas proposed under clause 22.09 already discussed.

57 Mr. Perkins' evidence is that his design attempts to minimise the impact of the car park in the front of the building by a garden bed at the front, closing gates after hours, retention of an existing canopy tree, and use of gravel for parking surface. The gabled entry forward of the building would minimise the effect of the deep front setback. The fence mid-way in the car park is to be planted with climbers to reduce the apparent scale and size of the car parking area.

58 Ms. Moser submitted that the proposal cannot meet the desired features of the type D area character, the character type that applies to the site. One is the height of fencing. Standards A20 and B32 of Clause 54 and 55 require front fences to be no higher than 1.2 metres. The proposed fencing is either 1.8 metres or 1.5 metres at the front. Not only are they too high against these standards, they are also out of keeping with the low fencing of the street.

59 A second issue is the design of the building. The proposed use of corrugated metal cladding and metal skillion roof are inconsistent with the style of residential development in the surrounding area. The use of the front setback area for car parking is unacceptable in a residential area. It specifically is against the car parking policies of Clause 22.01 that "garages, carports and associated visitor spaces be designed so that they do not dominate or visually disrupt the streetscape".

60 In my view, Mr. Perkins is faced with a dilemma that the site is a suburban house block on which he needs to accommodate a building of a certain size to cater for 60 children in different groups, staff and other activities. One main element of the design is the accommodation of on-site car parking. It is naturally most convenient to locate car parking at the front so that parking spaces are highly visible from the street, and leaving the quieter space at the rear for children play areas. This, however, creates a dominance of car parking at the front, an unattractive sight in a residential street of consistent built form and front setbacks. Despite his attempts to minimise, reduce or screen the open parking area, it is still dominant when viewed from the street. The open fences beyond car spaces 4 and 9, proposed to be planted with creepers, would in fact reduce the visibility of the availability of these spaces, a counter productive situation that parents may not realise there are car spaces available and reluctant to drive in to drop their children using those spaces. The heavy entry porch, a design attempt to bring forward the building line is limited in effectiveness, as one can still see through the structure.

61 By virtue of the dominant car park at the front, and the limited effectiveness of the gabled entry porch to suggest a building line that is more forward, I find the siting and massing of the development not sympathetic to the built form and consistent front setback of development in Jordan Street. This is not sympathetic to the neighbourhood character of the area, existing or preferred.

62 With regard to whether the proposal provides adequate car parking, Mr. Fairlie's evidence is that the proposed 12 spaces are adequate for staff parking and parents dropping off or picking up children, because there is a staggering of staff arrivals, and that the peak parent drop off and pick up times do not coincide with peak staff parking times. The basis of arriving at the number of 12 is an estimated rate of 0.12 parent space and 0.10 staff space.

63 Council engineer's survey of three child minding centres in Monash points to a ratio of 0.13 to 0.14 spaces per child. This would generate a demand of 6 - 8.4 spaces for parents along. When coupled with staff parking, the proposed 12 spaces would be grossly inadequate. Ms. Moser submitted that Mr. Fairlie conceded that there would be reliance on two on-street spaces. Development should not be dependent on on-street spaces. Otherwise, the use is too intensive for the site.

64 The review applicant's submission included a folder containing the locations, names, addresses, and sizes of a number of childcare centres in Monash. I took the opportunity to observe the character of use, and the manner of children being dropped off and picked up during peak hours. As far as the number of car spaces is concerned, the proposal provides a higher number than these centres.

65 Apart from providing adequate car spaces, my observation of the childcare centres observed led me to the view that it is equally important that these spaces are accessible and used. Their visibility, convenience and attractiveness for use are vital.

66 The childcare centre most similar to the current proposal, in terms of one house lot and one driveway off the car parking area is Koala Child Care Centre and Early Learning Centre at Marianne Road, Mount Waverley. Many other centres share their car parking with abutting non-residential uses (such as Scout Hall for Brine Street, a public parking for the Columbia Drive centre in Wheeler Hills), or have dual driveways so that vehicles can go in one way and out another (Donald Street in Clayton). Generally, the visibility of car parking in these centres is highly visible from the street.

67 The most disturbing pattern I observed is the behaviour of parents: their reluctance to make an effort to park properly in the car park. Some prefer to use on-street spaces. In the instance of Brine Street, the car park abutting the centre is totally open to view from the street. Whilst some parents park in that car park, there are parents who use the on-street short-term spaces. I surmise that it is more convenient to make one movement to park then move out in another. This pattern is evident in the Koala Child Minding centre where there are off-street spaces. No parent was observed to park in a car space but either park in the driveway, dropping their children off (taking between 5 to 8 minutes) then reverse out into Marianne Road, or park in the street and did not enter the car park.

68 My observation of the childcare centre in Yooralla Street is similar. That centre does not provide drop off spaces inside the curtilage of the property. It does have a short term restricted on-street space. During the afternoon peak of 23 March, 2005, parents can be seen picking up children in Yooralla and Mavron Street. Yooralla Street and Mavron Street are essentially a drop off and pick up area. I note that surrounding land use of this centre is not residential and therefore have no impact on residential amenity.

69 Apart from preferring on-street spaces and a one-in and one-out movement, another disturbing behaviour is parents walking their children around to the driver's (that is traffic side) door and securing the children's safety harnesses also on the traffic side of the carriageway when parking on street.

70 If parents of children attending the proposed centre have similar traits of behaviour, mindful that not all the proposed parking spaces are highly visible from the street, that some would either park in the driveway or in the street, there is the potential of two negative effects: parents not utilising all the available spaces and the undesirability of parents reversing in the busy north bound traffic in Jordan Street or parking in Jordan Street.

71 There is the argument that the times when parents drop off and collect their children may be confined to isolated times of the peak hours. This may be so, except that peak hours occur twice a day and 5 days a year, and during times that coincide with the busy north bound traffic in Jordan Street.

72 My observation of the childcare centres in Monash is that car parking spaces have to be highly visible, very convenient as opposed to being just available, and that the configuration of one way in and one way out would works well.

73 There were other issues raised about Jordan Street, whether there is traffic hold up because of the lights at the northern end, and whether Jordan Street is used as a bus route in the mornings, matters that may impact on the efficiency and safety of Jordan Street. My observation is that one light cycles can clear a bank of 14 vehicles. This, however, is not possible if there is a vehicle making a right hand turn into High Street Road. As for the use of the street as a bus route, a 'Driver' bus was observed north bound on the morning of 23 March 2005 at 8:25am.

74 The need for childcare facilities and its affordability are well known and accepted. It is a use that can be considered in the Residential 1 Zone. Having considered the particular environment of the review site, being located in a narrow local street, amongst residential properties, a parking configuration and vehicular access arrangement that do not facilitate convenient drop off and collection of children, and the intensity of use, I am not persuaded that the need for childcare places outweighs the impact on the amenity, character and efficiency of Jordan Street.

75 The design of the development is professional and well considered. However, the site is constrained by its shape and size. Together with the need to locate car parking at the front for clear visibility, the appearance of the development is at odds with the character of the area.

76 For the above reasons, the Application for Review is disallowed. I will order that a permit must not be issued.