Land where people congregate for religious or cultural activities, entertainment, or meetings.

1. Within the Green Wedge Zone, a Place of assembly is a Section 2 use, on the condition that it:

Must not be used for more than 10 days in a calendar year.

1. A Place of worship is also a Section 2 use, but without any condition. This distinction is important, as the Respondent seeks to use the proposed facility multiple times per week. If the use is therefore properly defined as a Place of Assembly, it is effectively prohibited from the review site, in the manner that is proposed.
2. The key question before me is whether the site is proposed to be primarily used for religious activities, or activities that could be more broadly described. The term religious activities is not defined in the Frankston Planning Scheme nor the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The term 'religious activity' is also not defined in the Macquarie Dictionary (sixth edition). The term religious is provided with nine definitions, the first six of which relate to the use of the word as an adjective. The first and fifth definitions contextually relate to this proceeding, and they are:

Relating to or connected with a monastic or religious order.

1. The written submissions presented on behalf of the Respondent sought to address the question of whether the proposed land use is a Place of worship, by demonstrating that the Respondent is a religion. Council also informed me that they were satisfied that the proposal is a Place of worship, as they are of the opinion that the Respondent is a religion. Having regard to the definitions provided above from the Macquarie Dictionary I agree with the Respondent and Council that the question of whether the proposed land use is a Place of worship can be determined on the question of whether the Respondent is a religion, or practices a (meaning, one) religion.
2. Having regard to various materials, I have come to the conclusion that the Respondent is not a religion, nor is it aligned with one particular religion. I make this finding for the following reasons.
3. The difference between the Respondent organisation and a religion is best explained by the following quotes from the Respondent's website:[2]

Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) along with its international affiliates is a philosophical organization based on the spiritual teachings of all religions and dedicated to a process of inner development under the guidance of a spiritual teacher.

The basis of every religion is spirituality. With the passage of time and changing social values, the basic spiritual teachings often become embellished with extra rules and rituals, and eventually take the shape of a formal religion. Despite its extensive outreach activities, RSSB tries to maintain the integrity of its spiritual core and preserve the simplicity of its teachings. At the heart of the RSSB philosophy is a belief that there is a spiritual purpose to human life - to experience the divinity of God who resides in all of us. It is through this experience that we will realize the truth of the concept that there is only one God and we are all expressions of his love.

Central to the RSSB philosophy is a spiritual teacher who explains the purpose of life and guides and instructs members in a method of spirituality based on a daily meditation practice. The present teacher is Baba Gurinder Singh, who lives with his family at the main centre in northern India.

By performing the meditation practice according to the teacher's instructions, individuals can realize the presence of God within themselves. It is a solitary practice that is done in the quiet of one's own home. Members commit themselves to a way of life that supports spiritual growth while carrying out their responsibilities to family, friends and society. There are no rituals, ceremonies, hierarchies or mandatory contributions, nor are there compulsory gatherings. Members need not give up their cultural identity or religious preference to follow this path.

1. This information identifies the Respondent as a philosophical organisation, one where attendees practice spirituality and meditation in addition to their religious backgrounds and beliefs, which may be varied. I was informed during the course of the hearing that members of RSSB Australia Pty Ltd maintain their existing religious beliefs, whether they be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or another religion. The aspects of the Respondent's activities as described on their website, indicate that the proposed use of the review site is not a Place of worship, as the activities being conducted on the land are not related to the practice or following of a religion. Instead, meditation practices and self-disciplines are taught and practiced, that are intended to supplement one's pre-existing religious beliefs, whatever they may be.
2. There are other relevant considerations which were brought to my attention during the hearing by Mr Pitt. Firstly, the Respondent has been accepted as a non-profit religious institution by the Australian Tax Office. As a result, the Respondent has been exempted from paying stamp duty and land tax in both New South Wales and Victoria. The website of the Australian Tax Office describes the following:

Your organisation is a religious institution if it is:

• not-for-profit
• an institution to advance or promote religious purposes
• and the beliefs and practices of members constitute a religion. Religion involves:
  • a belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle
  • the acceptance of canons of conduct that give effect to that belief.

• churches and other religious congregations
• missionary institutions
• seminaries and bible colleges.

1. It is clear from this information that the classification by the Australian Tax Office of religious institutions include uses that fall outside of the definition of a Place of worship under the Victorian Planning Provisions. For example, a missionary institution would likely be be defined as an 'office', and a seminary or bible college as an 'education centre.' I therefore do not regard the classification of the Respondent as a non-profit religious institution for tax purposes to be indicative that the proposed use of the review site is properly categorised as a Place of worship for planning purposes.
2. Secondly, Mr Pitt referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Church of The New Faith v Commissioner for Pay Roll Tax [1983] VicRp 10; [1983] 1 VR 97 (5 May 1982). That decision sought to resolve whether Scientology is a religious institution for the purpose of determining whether it is exempt from payroll tax in the State of Victoria. In reaching its decision, the Court sought to provide indicia by which one could examine whether a particular organisation was in fact a religion. Those indicia, as summarised by the Respondent to this proceeding in their written submission, are as follows:
   • The nature of the ideas fundamental to the concept of a religion
   • Whether the beliefs provide answers to ultimate questions
   • Whether the set of ideas involved adherence to formal ceremonies and services
   • Public acceptance
   • Whether the Applicant seeks to persuade members and potential members that the set of ideas represents the true faith or true answers to questions of ultimate concern
   • Commercialisation whereby seeking to exploit for commercial advantage was a criterion against activities being of a religious character
3. Thirdly, Mr Pitt called evidence from Pradeep Raniga, Manager - Property of RSSB Australia Pty Ltd. The written evidence of Mr Raniga is that:

The shares in the Applicant Company are beneficially owned by RSSB Australia; which is an affiliated association of the worldwide religious organisation of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas ('RSSB') headquartered in India and details of which can be found on the website at www.rssb.org. In essence, the organisation promotes the worship of God through the teachings of the Saints and founders of religions throughout history. A synopsis of the teachings and other essays can be found at this website. RSSB Australia is registered with and recognised by the Australian Taxation Office as a religious, non-profit Organisation.

At the core of the RSSB philosophy is a belief that there is a spiritual purpose to human life - to experience the divinity of God who resides in all of us. Members commit themselves to a way of life that supports spiritual growth while carrying out their responsibilities to family, friends and society. Members are vegetarian, abstain from alcohol and recreational drugs, are expected to lead a life of high moral values and undertake the practice of meditation. Members are encouraged to be self-supporting and not be a burden on society. They are free to make their own choices in life and maintain any cultural and political affiliations, which they choose. RSSB does not involve itself in the personal lives of its members.

Having a purpose-designed property provides the opportunity for the practical application of the spiritual philosophy. It provides the facilities for followers to focus themselves in activities that focus the mind to support the daily practice of meditation. Primarily these are attending weekly discourses and engaging in voluntary service. Voluntary service in our own centre achieves numerous outcomes:

• Breaks down social and ethnic barriers when working together with others
• Families interact and mingle
• Elderly obtain a purpose
• Youth and young children are introduced to the virtues of helping others
• Character building for all individuals
• Develop an ethos of selfless giving of one's time for the benefit of others

1. This written evidence was supplemented by oral evidence provided in response to my questions. The evidence of Mr Raniga assists me to apply the indicia as summarised by Mr Pitt from the decision of Church of The New Faith v Commissioner for Pay Roll Tax [1983] VicRp 10; [1983] 1 VR 97 (5 May 1982). In applying those indicia to RSSB Australia Pty Ltd and their proposal for the review site, I find:

1. RRSB have ideas about finding and connecting with God which is fundamental to the concept of a religion. 2. There does not appear to be a set of beliefs providing answers to ultimate questions, rather people are left to form their own beliefs relying on their times of meditations, their religious background, and the sacred texts of various religions. The use and reliance of the sacred texts of multiple mainstream religions was identified by Mr Raniga in his oral evidence.

1. RSSB has an element of formal services, meeting at specific times each week. Aside from the importance of meditation, specific ceremonies appear to be limited, and the Respondent does not appear to have specific ceremonies centred around weddings and funerals. Further, the material quoted earlier in these reasons from the Respondent's website clearly states that there are no rituals or ceremonies.

1. There appears to be some public acceptance of the organisation in Australia, and a stronger acceptance in some foreign countries. I am unaware of whether the public acceptance within Australia is that of a religion. 2. It appears that RSSB does not offer a set of ideas that represent the true faith or true answers to questions of ultimate concern, but rather seeks to draw these from various mainstream religions and their sacred texts. 3. I have no evidence of commercialisation being a component of RSSB Australia. The application before me includes an olive grove and vegetable garden, totalling over 7 hectares in size, which is to be tended by volunteer labour drawing on attendees to the site, the produce from which is proposed to be used by the Respondent and to be donated to charities.
2. I therefore have reservations regarding the ability for the Respondent to meet the second, third and fifth indicia. In written submissions tabled on behalf of the Respondent, the following is put in relation to these indicia:

The second indicia was whether the police provide answers to ultimate questions. Again it is submitted that the beliefs of the Applicant satisfy the criterion.

The third is an enquiry as to whether this set of ideas involves adherence to formal ceremonies and services and again the weekly Sunday service is an allergist to, all the different from, the services of Christian churches, Jewish synagogue or Muslim mosque.

Fifthly, whether the applicant seeks to persuade members and potential members that the set of ideas represent the true faith or true answers to questions of ultimate concern it is submitted that the activities of the applicant satisfy this criterion.

1. I am not persuaded by these submissions, for the reasons that follow. The phrase, 'again it is submitted,' used in response to the second indicia is intended to take one back to the following written response to the first indicia:

... it is submitted it is clear that the beliefs espoused by the Applicant are of a spiritual purpose to human life and the divinity of God which are elements of a religion.

1. While I do not question that these elements are pursued by the membership of the Respondent, they do not point on their own to a series of beliefs and answers to ultimate questions, other than those answers which are borrowed from mainstream religions, as they are applied by individual members of the Respondent which have faith in different religions.
2. Further, while the response to the third indicia refers to a weekly Sunday service, I do not ascribe the Supreme Court's reference to formal ceremonies and services to solely relate to the existence of a weekly meeting. Indeed, the decision of the Supreme Court appears to give weight to there being need for rituals beyond those that simply seek to resemble established religions:

3. The trappings. The use of the word "trappings" is no more than a convenient heading. It is intended to indicate an enquiry into whether the set of ideas involves adherence to formal ceremonies and services. Where such activities are conducted, provided that they are genuine, they may indicate the existence of religion, but on the other hand the mere adoption of certain trappings cannot convert a set of ideas which do not constitute a religion into one any more than the adoption of the trappings of a court can convert an administrative tribunal into a court: cf. Shell Co. of Australia Ltd. v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1930] UKPCHCA 1; (1930) 44 CLR 530, at p. 543.

In determining the weight to be attached to the adoption of the trappings of religion significance should, in my opinion, be attached to the time and circumstances of their adoption. Thus if one found that certain rituals which had grown out of primitive practices were adopted in order to give expression to the set of ideas in question, one might readily conclude that one was concerned with a religion. But where a set of ideas is developed and there is, as it were, superimposed upon the ideas forms or ceremonies resembling those of established religions, it may be possible to give little weight to their adoption.

1. I therefore consider the existence and reliance on a weekly service as evidence of formal ceremonies and services as lacking the depth required to satisfy this criteria.
2. I am also not persuaded by the written submissions made in relation to the fifth indicia, as those submissions provide no substantive information.
3. Fourthly, Mr Pitt referred me to a decision of the Delhi High Court which determined in 2004 that the parent organisation is a religious organisation. I was not provided a copy of that decision, but in any case find it less relevant to my decision making than the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria which I have referred to above.
4. The key matter in my assessment is my understanding that RSSB is not a religion per se. It appears to be a series of activities and character expectations, including meditation, vegetarianism and personal qualities[3], that seek to better connect adherents to their existing faith system and the 'one true God.' A clear indication in my view that RSSB is not a religion, is the absence of any unique sacred texts, or set of values and belief systems regarding the person and divinity of God, and man's relationship to God. Rather the services appear to draw on the sacred texts of various religions for instruction, as I was informed through the oral evidence of Mr Raniga. The absence of any unique sacred texts, relates to the second and fifth indicia established in the decision of Church of The New Faith v Commissioner for Pay Roll Tax [1983] VicRp 10; [1983] 1 VR 97 (5 May 1982).
5. For these reasons I find that RSSB Australia is not a religion, and therefore does not conduct religious activities. As such it cannot be regarded as proposing a Place of worship for the review site. Instead, I consider that RSSB is a philosophical organisation that seeks to teach its members a series of techniques, or a series of personal qualities, that will assist each member to enter a deeper spiritual relationship with their God, based on their own individual religion and series of beliefs, and live a moral life. Based on this finding, the proposal is for a Place of assembly, more particularly a place where philosophical or spiritual meetings and instruction can take place.
6. One might find this decision somewhat unusual, as at the heart of the activities that are to take place on the review site, is an intent to assist people to worship their God. There is therefore a natural connection between those activities and the phrase a 'Place of worship.' However, the definition of this land use does not simply rely on there being an element of worship taking place. If it did, it would likely include the proposed activities on the review site. Instead, the definition of a Place of worship refers specifically to religious activities, which I have taken to mean those activities being undertaken as part of a religion, an approach which was also adopted by the Council and the Respondent in these proceedings. For the reasons set out above, the proposal does not constitute a religion, and therefore does not constitute religious activities.
7. The use is therefore properly defined under the Frankston Planning Scheme as a Place of assembly. As identified above, the Green Wedge Zone lists a Place of assembly as a Section 2 Use on the condition that it:

Must not be used for more than 10 days in a calendar year.

1. The Respondent proposes to use the Place of Assembly on multiple occasions, including a weekly Sunday service for up to 600 people, a weekly midweek service for around 100-150 people, a weekly working bee each Saturday with a 'meal gathering' for around 200 people, and two national events a year with around 3,000 to 3,500 people in attendance.[4] As the application therefore proposes far in excess of 10 days of use in a calendar year, the use of the land becomes a Section 3 use, which is prohibited. I therefore cannot grant a permit for the proposal that is before the Tribunal.
2. Despite this finding, I will proceed to analyse and record findings in relation to the other relevant matters, in the event that a modified proposal that could comply with the provisions of the Green Wedge Zone is contemplated in the future.

IS THE PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES FOR LAND WITHIN THE GREEN WEDGE ZONE, INCLUDING THE IMPACT ON THE LANDSCAPE AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION?

1. The Applicant submits that the proposed buildings and associated infrastructure are too large for a Green Wedge Zone, that the proposal will not achieve the open rural character sought for this area, and that the agricultural component of the proposal is minimal and will not achieve the purpose of the Green Wedge Zone. At the heart of the Applicant's concerns is what they say is an urban use and development which will impact many of the qualities of the Green Wedge that they seek to protect.
2. The purposes of the Green Wedge Zone are as follows:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To recognise, protect and conserve green wedge land for its agricultural, environmental, historic, landscape, recreational and tourism opportunities, and mineral and stone resources.

To encourage use and development that is consistent with sustainable land management practices.

To encourage sustainable farming activities and provide opportunity for a variety of productive agricultural uses.

To protect, conserve and enhance the cultural heritage significance and the character of open rural and scenic non-urban landscapes.

To protect and enhance the biodiversity of the area.

1. The Zone also provides a series of decision guidelines which are relevant. The first purpose makes reference to policy at both a State and local level. As a state level policy seeks the following outcomes for green wedge land:

To protect the green wedges of Metropolitan Melbourne from inappropriate development.

Ensure strategic planning and land management of each green wedge area to promote and encourage its key features and related values.

Support development in the green wedge that provides for environmental, economic and social benefits.

Consolidate new residential development within existing settlements and in locations where planned services are available and green wedge area values can be protected.

Plan and protect major transport facilities that serve the wider Victorian community, such as airports and ports with their associated access corridors.

Protecting important productive agricultural areas such as Werribee South, the Maribyrnong River flats, the Yarra Valley, Westernport and the Mornington Peninsula.

Protect areas of environmental, landscape and scenic value.

Protect significant resources of stone, sand and other mineral resources for extraction purposes.[5]

1. At a local level, the following policies apply:

Maintain rural landscapes and rural uses in the City's Green Wedge areas.

• Promote forms of agriculture that are suited to the urban fringe, and those that can reuse waste water.
• Encourage low intensity private recreational and institutional uses that are consistent with the objective of maintaining essentially rural landscapes.
• Encourage urban related uses to locate in nearby urban zones.
• Ensure that the visual impact of development contributes to the maintenance of existing rural landscapes (height, building bulk, site coverage, setbacks, streetscape works).
• Protect extractive sites, potential landfill sites and the Eastern Treatment Plant from encroachment by residential or low density residential development.
• Investigate opportunities to provide open space links along drainage lines and in extractive areas.
• Protect significant bushland remnants.
• Maintain the pattern of rural landscapes that is quite open in the north and is more enclosed with a mosaic of paddocks and remnant bushland elsewhere.[6]

1. Finally, Clause 57 Metropolitan Green Wedge Land also applies and carries the following purposes:

To protect metropolitan green wedge land from uses and development that would diminish its agricultural, environmental, cultural heritage, conservation, landscape natural resource or recreation values.

To protect productive agricultural land from incompatible uses and development.

To ensure that the scale of use is compatible with the non-urban character of metropolitan green wedge land.

To encourage the location of urban activities in urban areas.

To provide transitional arrangements for permit applications made to the responsible authority before 19 May 2004.

To provide deeming provisions for metropolitan green wedge land.

1. My application of these provisions of the Frankston Planning Scheme to the proposal has been assisted by an inspection of the site and surrounding area. The review site sits on the edge of the Green Wedge zoned land, in a neighbourhood that also contains an industrial estate and a relatively recent housing estate. I appreciate the desire for Green Wedge Zone land to be developed in accordance with the intent of the Frankston Planning Scheme, and not as a transitional area at the edges. However, the potential for development of a vegetated landscape on the review site to limit views from within the Green Wedge Zone to surrounding urban forms is a positive outcome.
2. It is my finding that the manner in which the review site is proposed to be used and developed is entirely in accordance with the guidance that applies to this land within the Green Wedge Zone. I make this finding for the following reasons.
3. Firstly, while the proposal incorporates some extremely large buildings, these buildings are to be centrally sited on the review site, and will be either screened or filtered from views by a substantial amount of vegetation. The review site is a large site, and is therefore capable of containing some large buildings without unreasonably impacting on the existing and intended future landscape.
4. The largest proposed building on the review site is the main hall, which is around 6000 m² in size, and has an overall height of 11.2 metres. While the footprint of this building is massive, the overall scale is well mitigated by the application of a green pitched roof, which will sit over wall heights of just 4.9 metres on the east and west elevations. The main hall is proposed to be sited some 195 metres from the boundary of the review site to Boundary Road, and 268 metres from the Frankston-Dandenong Road. Substantial setbacks also are proposed to the site's northern and western boundaries. I am satisfied that the setback distances involved, coupled with the nature of the built form, as well as the substantial landscaping that will occur on site, will satisfactorily allow this and other large buildings that are proposed for the review site to sit well within the surrounding landscape.
5. Secondly, I am satisfied that the mixture of formal and informal planting that is proposed for the site, including the planting of an olive grove, will achieve the intent for an open rural landscape. The Applicant was particularly critical of the formal nature of the proposed planting, in that much of the planting, including that of an olive grove, will occur in formal rows. This they say will contrast significantly to the informal nature of rural landscapes as they occur naturally.
6. It is my observation that much of the landscaping in rural areas is neither natural nor informal. Many rural areas have a landscape that is heavily altered by human impact. Further, there is a wide range of rural landscapes that are very formal and regimented, such as those that occur at orchards, wineries, timber plantations and even rice farms. In addition, the windbreaks of tall trees that often dot rural landscapes have a very formal and regimented quality about them. The proposed olive grove will fit within the idea of an open rural landscape, given it is an agricultural activity that one will naturally expect to find in a rural area. I am also satisfied that the remainder of the planting, which will consist of a mix of boundary planting, formal planting and informal planting will all assist to contribute to a landscape that relates to the rural context and landscape intent of the Green Wedge area.
7. Thirdly, I am satisfied that the agricultural component of the proposed land use is real and meaningful, and will assist to achieve one of the purposes of the Green Wedge Zone, which is:

1. Significantly, this purpose does not seek to encourage use of the land for agriculture, but rather to provide for agricultural activities. This purpose is supported by the following decision guidelines:

The maintenance of agricultural production and the impact on the rural economy.

The protection and retention of land for future sustainable agricultural activities.

1. The agricultural component of the proposal for the review site includes just over 5.2 ha of land being used as an olive grove for some 1200 trees, plus around 2 ha of land being used for the planting of vegetables. I agree with the submissions of the Applicant that the agricultural component comprises a minor proportion of the overall site, and would not be a viable agricultural activity on its own, if it had to rely on paid labour and was expected to financially support an occupier of the land. However, a Place of worship and a Place of assembly are uses which are not required by the provisions of the Green Wedge Zone to be undertaken in conjunction with agriculture. Therefore, while it is desirable from a range of perspectives for an agricultural activity to occur on part of the review site, there is no need under the Green Wedge Zone and supporting policies for that agricultural component to be substantial in size, or a viable commercial activity.
2. Further, I am satisfied that the proposal will achieve the decision guidelines which are quoted above. The review site currently carries some head of cattle, at what appears to be a relatively low stocking rate. It is the evidence of Mr Phillips that the review site has limited potential for more intensive agricultural activities. Therefore, the proposed use and development of the review site will have a limited impact on the amount of agricultural production from the site, as it will replace the existing broad acre grazing with a more intensive olive grove and vegetable production that will be assisted by the use of volunteer labour on the review site. It is also the evidence of Mr Phillips that there are few sustainable agricultural activities occurring within this precinct, due to the impact of land values and other constraints. It is also my observation that large proportions of the review site will remain undeveloped by buildings, and therefore able to be used for agricultural activities into the future. For these reasons I find that the proposal will not detrimentally impact the retention of land for future sustainable agricultural activities.
3. Finally, it is the submission of the Applicant that the proposal is for an urban land use that will fundamentally change the appearance of the review site. A Place of worship and a Place of assembly can be considered as an urban, regional or rural land use. The needs for a Place of worship and a Place of assembly exists in all of these contexts. Further, I note that the provisions of the Green Wedge Zone, and Clause 57 of the Frankston Planning Scheme specifically provide for land within the Green Wedge Zone to be used for a Place of worship and a Place of assembly. There is inherent in these provisions an acceptance that at least some land within the Green Wedge Zone will be suitable to be used for these purposes.
4. For the reasons that I have already set out, I find that the manner in which the use and development of the site is to occur achieves many of the purposes and objectives of the Green Wedge Zone, and will achieve appropriate built form, landscape and agricultural outcomes for the review site.

IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE WITHIN SCHEDULE 2 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OVERLAY?

1. The site falls within Schedule 2 of the Environmental Significance Overlay. The purpose of the Schedule to this Overlay is as follows:

The Eastern Treatment Plant provides sewage and wastewater treatment facilities for most of eastern Melbourne. The inappropriate establishment or siting of odour-sensitive uses could impact on the operation of the Treatment Plant.

1. Consequently, one of the objectives of this overlay is:

To exclude uses that require the presence of a large number of people over an extended period of time.

1. The Eastern Treatment Plant is operated by Melbourne Water. In accordance with the Schedule to Clause 66.04 of the Frankston Planning Scheme, Melbourne Water is a determining referral authority for applications within Schedule 2 of the Environmental Significance Overlay. The planning permit application was referred to Melbourne Water, and in a letter dated 25 May 2016 they gave their consent to the grant of a permit. That letter contains the following advice:

The property is situated within an Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO3) (sic) and may be affected by odours which may emit from the Eastern Treatment Plant (ETP). Melbourne Water is not aware of any odour-related issues at the proposed location of the new development but there may be a residual risk of unintended odour emissions from time to time.

1. It is the evidence of Mr McGurn that the proposed use and development is appropriate for the review site, and responds appropriately to Schedule 2 to the Environmental Significance Overlay. In response to the objective that is quoted above, it is the evidence of Mr McGurn that people who congregate on the review site will not be present on the site over an extended period of time, but rather for a matter of hours here and there. Further, Mr McGurn notes that people attending the review site have a choice to remain on site or to leave, which sets the proposed use and development apart from one's workplace or residence.
2. I am persuaded by the evidence of Mr McGurn, along with the referral response from Melbourne Water. For the reasons set out above I am satisfied that the proposed use and development is an appropriate one for the buffer surrounding the Eastern Treatment Plant, and will not likely impact on the future operation of the Eastern Treatment Plant.

WILL THERE BE ANY UNREASONABLE OFF-SITE AMENITY IMPACTS?

1. The Applicant did not allege that the proposed use and development of the review site will result in any unreasonable amenity impacts to the surrounding properties. The site abuts a Place of worship to the west, an industrial estate to the south, sporting grounds and agricultural land to the east and further agricultural land to the north. A residence exists on agricultural land in relatively close proximity to part of the northern and eastern boundaries of the review site.
2. The nature of the nearby industrial uses, sporting grounds and the adjacent Place of worship are such that they are not sensitive to potential offsite impacts from the proposed use and development of the review site. The proposal has the potential to impact on the amenity of the one nearby dwelling by way of noise. However, I am satisfied that with the separation distances involved, and the application of State Environment Protection Policies N-1 and N-2, that the potential noise impact from activities on the review site can be adequately addressed in this context. I note that this is not a quiet rural environment, with significant levels of traffic occurring along Frankston-Dandenong Road, and the adjacent Eastlink which does not have noise barriers in this location. As such, I expect background noise levels to be relatively high for a rural area, and therefore the potential impact from noise from the activities on the review site is reduced.
3. The buildings are sufficiently setback from surrounding boundaries such that overlooking and overshadowing are not relevant concerns. While there will be some amenity impact arising out of an increase in traffic being generated by the proposed use and development of the review site, the extent of traffic increase will be for limited periods, and it is the evidence of Mr Gnanakone that such increases in traffic will be able to be safely and appropriately accommodated on the surrounding road network. I set out the reasons below why the evidence of Mr Gnanakone is to be accepted in this proceeding.
4. For these reasons I find that the proposed use and development of the review site will not cause any unreasonable amenity impacts to surrounding properties.

DOES THE PROPOSAL APPROPRIATELY PROVIDE FOR CAR PARKING AND TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS?

1. Car parking and traffic evidence was prepared by Mr Gnanakone. As neither the Applicant nor the Council sought to cross-examine Mr Gnanakone, I need to give his evidence significant weight. It is the evidence of Mr Gnanakone that sufficient car parking is provided for the review site, with the amount of formal car parking provided easily satisfying the requirements under Clause 52.06 of the Frankston Planning Scheme for the operation of the site as is proposed to occur on a weekly basis. When the twice yearly large gatherings of some 3,500 people are to occur, two formal lawn areas will act as overflow car parking areas.
2. It is also the evidence of Mr Gnanakone that the multiple access points proposed from the review site to Boundary Road and Frankston-Dandenong Road will be capable of accommodating for the large traffic movements involved with the various events that are proposed to occur on the review site. To this end I am also comforted by the fact that the proposed traffic and access arrangements to the review site have been assessed both by VicRoads and by the Council's traffic engineering department. Both of these authorities have given their consent to the grant of a permit for the proposal, having regard to the impact of the proposed use and development on the surrounding road network.
3. For these reasons I am satisfied, having regard to the evidence of Mr Gnanakone, that the proposal will appropriately provide for car parking and traffic movements.

1. For the reasons set out above I have found that the proposed use and development responds appropriately to a number of the planning controls, policies and constraints that apply to the review site. However, the proposal fails to fall within the definition of a Place of worship, and therefore falls under the broader definition of a Place of assembly. As the proposal involves multiple weekly meetings on the review site, and the provisions of the Green Wedge Zone limits a Place of assembly from operating not more than ten times in a year, the proposed land use is prohibited. As such, I am not able to direct the grant of a permit for the proposed use on the review site.
2. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. No permit is granted.

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

[3] Including abstinence from alcohol, recreational drugs and gaming.

[4] As set out in the expert evidence of Stuart McGurn.

[5] Clause 11.04-7 of the Frankston Planning Scheme.