1. There was emphasis about the proposed development being located on a prominent corner site in the gateway approach. We are not persuaded by the council and respondent that the proposed development does not contribute to the outcomes being sought for the gateway approach.
2. We are satisfied that the proposed development responds appropriately in the design objectives of the DDO and DDO1 as follows:
   1. The design of the buildings, located along the south-western boundary, is similar to the previous commercial building on this site. The front of the building is well setback from the street frontage, similar to the previous built form. The pallet of materials, soft and hard landscaping scheme and curved canopy with a timber undercroft provides a high design standard for a service station.
   2. The proposed development will not affect any viewing corridors such as Ovens River, King River, parks and other key open space areas.
   3. Use of the site for a service station is appropriate in C1Z.
   4. The landscape plan by Yonder Landscape Architect has been well considered providing design detail to respond to the corner site and the sites commercial context, the CAA, and residential interface. The north-eastern corner of the review site provides landscaping near and adjacent to the proposed building. A raised garden bed with low level planting along the street frontages (corten steel garden wall no taller than 300 millimeters) adjacent to the footpath provides a safe pedestrian link along and throughout the site.
   5. The 1.8 metre corten finish acoustic fence is constructed along the eastern boundary and the Meldrum Street frontage. Screen trees will be planted along the interface with the adjoining residential properties. We are satisfied that these areas provide sufficient setbacks to allow for appropriate landscaping. Furthermore, we are satisfied that the landscape plan shows planting of canopy trees underpinned with ground cover, shrubs and screening shrubs.
   6. We agree with the evidence from Ms Roberts, that the design detail, well considered material palette (timber look vertical aluminium battens, cladding, polished concrete colourbond monument pain finish, corten finish to plinth walls), integration of soft and hard landscaping provides a site-specific outcome that addresses each of the interfaces in an appropriate manner. We find the extent of the building form along the western side of the review site, setback from the common boundary by 3 metres with the residential interface, provides planting opportunities, and materials and finishes that are taken from Wangaratta CBD.[18]
   7. The Building and Works requirements are discretionary controls and only need to be met where relevant.[19] There is no specified maximum building height or setback requirements for the gateway precinct. We find that these controls in this instance, are intended to encourage higher built form and large-scale development, with a focus on achieving a suitable transition between existing built form and new development. We find these controls, are not relevant in this instance because of the operational requirements that support the use of a service station. Whilst the respondent and council suggested a higher built form with a zero setback to the street frontage, the single storey design is appropriate for the intended use and ensures the site functions effectively. The proposal still responds to the relevant design objectives through the inclusion of landscaping, a well-integrated fuel canopy and appropriate boundary treatments.
   8. We find that the development of the land as proposed responds appropriately to the design guidelines and will not have a detrimental impact on the future character of the area, as envisaged by local policy. We are satisfied that the articulation of the buildings and the extent of built form and fencing within the review site, responds appropriately to its context.
3. The review site does not have access to views as outlined in the DDO, including any views of historical importance as outlined in the nearby HO20. Whilst the respondent has raised concerns that the proposed use and development would conflict with the landscape setting portrayed in Meldrum Street which is covered by HO20, we do not share this view. The removal of the existing cross-over, the proposed landscape scheme and the corten finish boundary fence, acknowledges the residential character and interface along Meldrum Street. Overall, we are satisfied the proposal provides a sympathetic response to this heritage interface, considering this dramatically changes at the Perry Street/Meldrum Street interface.

1. As the site is located within C1Z, signage controls within Clauses 34.01-9 and 52.05 categorise the site as Category 1 (commercial areas) where internally illuminated, business identification and panel signs are contemplated where they add vitality and colour to commercial areas.
2. The proposed signage throughout the review site includes:
   • 1 x internally illuminated pylon sign located at the north-west corner with the Ryly/Perry Street. The pylon sign is 9 metres high, double sided with fuel pricing, 7/11 business signage and associated promotion signage associated with 7/11.
   • 5 x internally illuminated fascia signage along the fuel dispensing canopy ie banding along the fascia of the fuel pump canopy.
   • 2 x internally illuminated 1.82 metres x 1.82 metres sign on the main building façade.
   • 1 x 1.46 metre x 18.54 metre awning sign on the building façade.
   • 1 x 0.9 metre awning sign on the retail building.
3. We share the same view as the council officers of their assessment relating to the proposed signage. Their review of other planning permissions of other pylon signs in the surrounding area found that the typical height does not exceed 9 metres, with the exception of the McDonalds monopole sign being 13.8 metres tall. We also observe the KFC sign opposite to be of a similar height.
4. We are satisfied that the proposed pylon sign, along with the 7-eleven branding on the architectural feature attached to the main building, is appropriate in the context of Ryley Street. As noted in the planning officers delegate report, this section of Ryley Street already contains a substantial amount of signage, including various pylon and panel signs. The surrounding area features a concentration of signage associated with the major supermarket/retail and fast food chains (such as Coles, Kmart, KFC, McDonalds, Hungry Jacks) typical of a major thoroughfare leading into a town centre. We find the proposed signage would neither add to nor detract from the existing character of the area.
5. We are also satisfied that the signage is appropriate in the context of the proposed service station, associated 7-eleven store and food and drink premises. The 7-eleven business identification signage and banding along the fascia of the building and fuel canopy, is appropriate and in context of the review site. There 7-eleven banding around the fuel canopy along the southern elevation is limited to one corner of the canopy given its interface with the residential properties opposite in Meldrum Street. We find this is a respectful outcome to those residential properties' opposite, as outlined in the artist impression below.[20]

1. Finally, we find the proposed signage is compliant with the intent of DDO1 as outlined in section 2 of Schedule 1 (Buildings and works), at clause 43.02 clause which states that new signs on development must:
   • Be limited on the primary and secondary street frontages of corner sites.
   • Be of a scale proportionate to the building.
   • Avoid exceeding the height of the building's street awning or verandah.
   • Not comprise of temporary/retractable awnings/umbrellas.
   • Avoid impeding pedestrian flow on footpaths.
   • Respect the surrounding heritage elements.
2. The parties made various submissions about the form of conditions relating to signage that would be appropriate for the site, including:
   • Condition 18 Lighting and DTP Signage conditions
3. These conditions are considered further in the section on conditions below.

Are the traffic impacts and management of traffic acceptable?

1. The objective of Clause 18.02-4S is to 'facilitate an efficient and safe road network that integrates all movement networks and makes best use of existing infrastructure.'
2. It is proposed that the service station and food and drink premises on the review site will have left in, left out access to Ryley Street and left in, left out access to Perry Street.
3. Councils ground relating to traffic is that the application does not address the traffic safety risk associated with the existing road network and intersection at Ryley Street and Perry Street and is against the policy objectives of Clause 18.02-4S (Roads) of the Wangaratta Planning Scheme.
4. Council submits that, given that Ryley Street is a primary road where movements should be directed, they take no issue with the proposed movements to and from Ryley Street. Council's concern primarily relates to the entry and exit proposed from Perry Street, as follows:
   • The entry off Perry Street is superfluous. Entry from Perry Street is only via the southern lane due to the large traffic island extending from Ryley Street to Meldrum Street. Any entry to the site would be from Ryley Street and unless a vehicle missed the entry point would it turn into Perry Street to enter the site.
   • The exist to Perry Street requires to turn left into Perry Street due to the traffic island. They say this would result in two outcomes:
     • a U turn around the traffic island to the exit onto Ryley Street (which they question the necessity of, given the exit point designed to Ryley Street); and
     • vehicles turning left into Perry Street and then turning left in Meldrum Street and then left into Moore Street to find Ryley Street. The introduction of additional vehicle movement to Meldrum Street and Moore Street is an unnecessary impact on these streets.
5. However, the Council officer report provides the following in relation to traffic:

The application was referred the Department of Transport and Planning as the relevant road management authority for Ryley Street. Following a request for further information, the application was amended to address a number of traffic management concerns raised by the Department which is the current layout addressed in this report. This layout was re-referred to the Department who provided conditional consent to the proposal. The amended layout sought to address traffic being directed back through the residential road network, and now seeks to direct traffic (both ingress and egress) via Ryley Street and Perry Street exclusively. There may be some traffic that still utilise Meldrum Street, although it will no longer be a necessity in order to exit on Ryley Street as direct access is provided as part of the development herein. Further to this, Council's Technical Services Unit as the local road management authority also provided conditional consent to the proposal for the use of Perry Street for ingress and egress. Therefore, the traffic management to and from the site is considered to meet the relevant legislative requirements and is satisfactory to the relevant road management authorities.

1. The respondents submit that the Ryley Street and Perry Street intersection is known, anecdotally, to be a dangerous intersection. They say there is apprehension that the proposed access arrangements will create greater chance for vehicle conflict at this intersection. They also raised concerns that the development would result in additional vehicle movement to Meldrum Street and Moore Street.
2. The applicant relies on the evidence of Mr Walsh. Mr Walsh gave evidence that:
   • There exists adequate parking provided.
   • Petroleum deliveries and other deliveries can enter and exit the site, and unload and load safely.
   • The traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated within the surrounding road network.
3. Mr Walsh gave the following evidence regarding the concerns about the use of Meldrum Street for traffic:

In relation to Meldrum Street, I do not expect there to be any material use of this street, as the existing access is to be removed and vehicles cannot turn right in to the site from Perry Street. Therefore, the only potential movements to Perry Street would be from vehicles departing the site and wanting to head to the north east, albeit this is relatively convoluted and it is just as easy to turn left on Ryley Street and then undertake a u-turn, a short distance to the west.

Based on the characteristics of the proposed use and restriction of movements to left-in / left-out at both the Ryley Street and Perry Street accesses, I am of the view the development will make no material change to traffic conditions in the area.

1. In respect of Mr Walsh's comments on the ease of conducting a U-Turn on Ryley Street, the applicant observed that there is a lane that facilitates a U-Turn movement in front of the Coles/Kmart development to the immediate west.
2. The Tribunal accepts the expert evidence of Mr Walsh and finds that there are no traffic engineering reasons why a planning permit for the proposed service station should be refused, subject to appropriate conditions, because:
   • The level of traffic generated because of this proposal can be managed by the existing conditions in Perry Street and Ryley Street.
   • The proposed access arrangements will provide for safe access to the development.
   • The provision of 12 car spaces supplemented by car parking at the bowsers is expected to adequately accommodate the car parking demands of the proposed development.
   • The proposed parking layout and access arrangements accord with the requirements of the Scheme.
   • There is no statutory bicycle parking requirement. The provision of a single hoop to accommodate two bicycle spaces is considered satisfactory.
   • Loading arrangements have been considered and are appropriately designed.
   • The application is not in conflict with the policy objective of Clause 18.02-4S.
3. We have included the conditions required by the Department of Transport and Planning as the relevant road management authority for Ryley Street.

1. As already outlined above, in the C1Z under the use of the land, at clause 34.01-2 states that a use must not detrimentally affect the amenity of the neighbourhood through the:
   • Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land.
   • Appearance of any building, works or materials.
   • Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil.
2. This provision also relates to an existing use which does not require a permit under the C1Z.
3. Clause 34.01-6 (Application requirements) requires that the likely effects, if any, on adjoining land, including noise levels, traffic, the hours of delivery and despatch of goods and materials, hours of operation and light spill, solar access and glare.
4. Clause 34 01-8 (Decision guidelines) consideration of the interface with adjoining zones, especially the relationship with residential areas, and the effect of traffic to be generated on roads.
5. The objective of clause 13.05-1S (Noise management) is 'To assist the management of noise effects on sensitive land uses'. The Strategies are:

Ensure that development is not prejudiced and community amenity and human health is not adversely impacted by noise emissions.

Minimise the impact on human health from noise exposure to occupants of sensitive land uses (residential use, child care centre, school, education centre, residential aged care centre or hospital) near the transport system and other noise emission sources through suitable building siting and design (including orientation and internal layout), urban design and land use separation techniques as appropriate to the land use functions and character of the area.

1. Statutory noise policy relevant to this proposal includes:
   • The Environment Protection Regulations 2021 ('Regulations');
   • EPA Publication 1826 ('Noise Protocol'); and
   • The General Environmental Duty ('GED')
2. Council submits that, whilst the Scheme supports a service station in this location (and they note that there is one across the road and it also has dwellings nearby), they say this need not automatically imply that a service station is appropriate on the subject land. Council submits that the design response of the service station, and food and drink premises, do not protect the amenity of the area and is inconsistent with the character of the area. Councils ground relating to acoustic impacts is as follows:

6. The application has not provided a suitable design response to ensure it does not detrimentally affect the amenity of the neighbourhood, with particular respect to noise and vapour, pursuant to Clause 34.01-2.

1. However, it is noted that the Council officer report provides the following qualitative overview of noise impacts from the proposal in support of the permit application:

The Commercial 1 Zone seeks to "create vibrant mixed use commercial centres", with the subject site being located on the immediate outer of the central activity centre for Wangaratta. The immediate commercial surrounds contain larger commercial enterprises (Coles, Kmart, etc), take away food premises (McDonalds, Hungry Jacks, KFC and Subway), other service stations and smaller food and drink premises, and a number of accommodation premises. There is also a residential interface to the south (Meldrum Street) that is within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone - Schedule 1, that is also affected by the Heritage Overlay - HO20 (this overlay does not affect the subject site). The surrounding area has an established mixed character, with a large variation of built form and extent of signage. The area is also characterised by Ryley Street, which is an arterial road and provides connection to the eastern and western ends of Wangaratta to the Hume Freeway. This is a high traffic area, with high visitation to the commercial premises along Ryley Street and through traffic to the central activity centre. Therefore, this is an area that already has traffic and associated noise as part of the everyday lived experience. The previous land use for a tyre repair centre was consistent with the mixed use character found within the surrounding area, and was in contrast to the residential character to the south. Therefore, based on this mixed character and proximity to Ryley Street, that proposal is considered to be appropriately located and zoned.

Although, whilst the site may be appropriate for a service station development generally, consideration must be given to the proposed 24-hour operation of the use. Whilst the subject site has been used for commercial purposes previously, the tyre repair centre was not a 24-hour operation. The proposed intensification must be considered against the purpose of the zone and compatibility with surrounding land interfaces. This is a location that is already affected acoustically by traffic noise at night and standard conditions can be imposed to ensure that light spill is not directed towards residential properties (headlight movements can be screened via landscaping). Illuminated signage is also proposed to be located along Ryley Street on the opposite side of the subject site from the residential interface. The proposal is not a land use that would inherently draw additional visitors to the town out of normal hours, therefore, it is not considered that 24-hour operations would necessarily increase traffic noise and movements at night. Therefore, it is unlikely that there will be an unreasonable amenity impact.

1. The respondents accept that subject to appropriate noise mitigation and management control measures being implemented through conditions of any permit granted, the proposed use and development can be conducted without unacceptable off-site noise impacts arising directly from the proposal (i.e. activities occurring within the site). The respondents rely on the acoustic evidence of Mr Leo in seeking to establish what they consider to be appropriate draft permit conditions.
2. The applicant relies on the acoustic evidence of Mr Tardio, who gave the following evidence in relation to the proposal:

In my experience, a typical service station use does not emit any high levels of noise and service stations are often sited abutting residential interfaces, with many examples of this across Victoria. This includes an operating service station and car wash on the opposite side of Ryley Street from the Subject Land (APCO). The Subject Land is within the C1Z and there are obviously a number of other commercial uses along Ryley Street, including fast food restaurants and retail premises. Expectations about noise amenity are usually tempered for residents in proximity to non-sensitive land zoning. Indeed, the Regulations and Noise Protocol increase the noise limits (or what is considered reasonable noise) the closer a sensitive receptor is to a commercial or industrial land zoning. Case in point, there are two dwellings at 15-17 Moore Street abutting the southwest corner of the Subject Land which are within the C1Z. These residents should not have the same noise amenity expectation as those within residential zoning and higher noise limits apply for these properties in accordance with the Noise Protocol.

The broad use of a service station is normally confined to transient sources, and are not normally contentious issues with regard to noise impacts, such as:

a) Customer vehicles entering and exiting; and

b) Fuel tanker and kiosk deliveries.

In relation to deliveries, these sources occur very infrequently and are normally controlled by limiting the hours for deliveries to avoid impacts during sensitive times. Unleaded and diesel fuel delivery is gravity fed at service stations, which essentially makes no noise due to the lack of any mechanical pumping requirements. My instructions are that LPG is not proposed at this site, which would otherwise require mechanical pumping.

While the Application also proposes a food & drink premises, the proposal is not for a more intensive type of fast-food chain and my instructions are that the intended hours of operation are 8am-10pm. There is already a Hungry Jacks convenience restaurant with drive through directly opposite the Subject Land on Perry Street, operating with similar hours.

1. The GED is the duty that a person who is engaging in an activity that may give rise to risks of harm to human health or the environment from pollution or waste must minimise those risks, so far as reasonably practicable. The Applicant submits that, in response to requirements under the GED to minimise noise impacts so far as reasonably practicable, the Amended Plans included the following, based on Mr Tardio's input:
   1. Inclusion of acoustic boundary fencing along sensitive boundaries (southeast and south), 1.8m in height, being a mix of acoustic rated timber paling and corten steel fencing;
   2. Enclosure of the main waste area;
   3. Enclosure of plant platforms above the height of acoustic fences; and
   4. Enclosure around tyre inflation device.
2. Mr Tardio notes that, whilst some of the above measures were not required to comply with the Regulations and Noise Protocol, his view is that they are reasonably practicable attenuation measures to satisfy the GED and to minimise noise impacts beyond statutory requirements.
3. The acoustic evidence of the two acoustic experts, Mr Leo and Mr Tardio, is close in terms of the matters it traverses and the conclusions. Both experts identify compliance with relevant sleep disturbance criteria. Both experts recommend post commissioning testing, and the experts specify marginally different density acoustic fencing. Whilst there were some technical differences in the evidence, which were explored during the hearing, the applicant submits that, given the high degree of conformity amongst the acoustic experts, there is no acoustic reason why a planning permit should not issue.
4. The Tribunal agrees that there is a high degree of agreement between the acoustic experts. We are satisfied that the Amended Plans demonstrate reasonable control measures to manage the noise impacts in accordance with the planning scheme and there is no acoustic reason why a planning permit should not issue. The resulting decision that needs to be made is how the permit should be conditioned.
5. The parties made various submissions about the form of conditions relating to acoustics that would be appropriate for the site, including:
   • Condition 1(d) acoustic treatment
   • Conditions 6, 8 and 9 delivery and waste collection times
   • Condition 14 management of patrons on the site
6. These conditions are considered further in the section on conditions below.

Is the management of other amenity impacts such as odour and lighting acceptable?

1. Under the Commercial 1 Zone, clause 34.01-2 (Use of land) states that:

A use must not detrimentally affect the amenity of the neighbourhood, including through the:

• Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land.
• Appearance of any building, works or materials.
• Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil.

1. Pursuant to Clause 65.01 of the Wangaratta Planning Scheme the responsible authority must give consideration to the effect on the environment, human health and amenity of the area.
2. Both the grounds of the council and the respondents raise issues concerning vapours, human health and amenity.
3. Councils submits that the site layout forcing the service station and food and drink premises to the south eastern corner of the review site will contribute to a detrimental impact on the amenity of the dwellings to the east and to the south.
4. Council considers the location of the bin enclosure between the two proposed buildings, for the 7/11 and the food and drink premises, to be a poor design response having regard to the close proximity of residents to the east and south. They say that, not only will these areas be noisy, they will also emit odours.
5. Council accept that residents located in the C1Z or located directly to the south of the land, should not accept the same level of amenity as an area zoned residential remote from other zones. They cited the decision of 140 High Street Pty Ltd v Mansfield SC [2021] VCAT 291 (20 April 2021) where the Tribunal stated that:

residents of land in C1Z (or immediately proximate to C1Z land) cannot expect the same level of amenity as that experienced by residents in residential zones, removed from commercial land. What this means is that there needs to be some acceptance of amenity impacts that would not arise in exclusively residential areas;

1. However, council submits that the amenity issues associated with waste could be minimised through the relocation of the buildings closer to the north and preferably to the north-west corner.
2. We do not share this view. The proposed buildings are setback 3 metres from the shared boundary with the residential properties. There is no sensitive interface such as secluded private open space or habitable room windows along this boundary. Instead, the adjoining garages/car port and associated service yards back onto the shared boundary. We are satisfied that the proposed acoustic fencing and tree planting provide appropriately address amenity considerations.
3. The Council relies on the expert evidence of Mr Finlayson. In respect of vapour, Mr Finlayson gave evidence that vapour emissions associated with the service station use are governed and enforced by the EPA.
4. In respect of lightings and light spill, Mr Finlayson gave evidence that:
   • Light spill is a relevant consideration for a service station use. Light sources include light emitted from signage, fixed lighting attached to the building structures, potential bollard lighting and vehicle headlights. The separation provided by Meldrum Street will assist in tempering light impacts onto dwellings to the south (NRZ). The proposed 1.8 metre high boundary / acoustic fencing along the eastern boundary will assist in tempering light onto the adjoining dwellings to the east (C1Z properties). Notwithstanding this a detailed lighting modelling report should be prepared to demonstrate that compliance can be achieved with Australian standards.
   • A condition of any permit granted should also require that external lighting is designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the responsible authority to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land.
5. The respondents submit that light spill has the potential to unreasonably impact on residential neighbours. They say a lighting plan should be a requirement of any permit granted so that an assessment of lighting impact can be undertaken by council. However, they acknowledge that dwellings in the C1Z and to the south, within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone cannot expect the same level of amenity as you find in an area solely zoned residential.
6. The applicant relies on the expert evidence of Mr Glossop. In respect of lighting and light spill, Mr Glossop stated that whilst he is not an expert in relation to lighting, from a town planning perspective he does not consider the impact of light spill to be unmanageable.
7. We accept the evidence of Mr Glossop and Mr Finlayson and are satisfied that there are no other amenity reasons to refuse the permit application because:
   • There is no evidence before the Tribunal that vapours and odours will be a problem.
   • The location of pumps and petroleum loading which are well set back from domestic uses.
   • The acoustic wall and canopy trees/landscaping will appropriately manage direct light spill from the proposal.
   • It is appropriate that the lighting be baffled and managed to the satisfaction of the Council by way of permit condition.
8. Conditions are considered further in the section on conditions below.

1. Prior to the final day of the hearing, the applicant and council filed without prejudice permit conditions that were agreed between the two parties.
2. The respondent sought changes to several of the conditions proposed by the applicant and council relating to acoustic treatment, delivery and waste collection times, management of patrons on the site, and lighting and DTP signage conditions.
3. DTP provided clarification to their recommended conditions, generally relating to the proposed signage and its interpretation. The DTP on the final day provided an updated recommended conditions. We accept these changes.
4. We provide a summary of discussion in relation to these conditions below.

Use and development of a Service Station and Retail Premises, Alteration of access to a road in a Transport Zone 2 and installation of signage.

1. The applicant and council agree that a permit is not required for the retail premises. We agree that a permit is not required for the food and drink premises as we have already outlined above. We will therefore delete this from the permit preamble as updated in Appendix A.

1. The Applicant adopts Mr Tardio's evidence that acoustic treatment is not required for the bin enclosure.
2. The respondents proposed an extra condition 1(d), which adopted Mr Leo's acoustic evidence, as follows:

1(d) A notation that the roof and the rear wall of the bin enclosure must be constructed of a material with either an acoustic rating of at least 29 dB Rw or with a surface density of at least 12 kg/m2.

1. We agree with Mr Tardio's evidence that acoustic treatment is not required for the bin enclosure. As such, we have not included the proposed extra condition 1(d) and have left the existing condition 1(d) which refers to a requirement for fencing, as opposed to acoustic fencing, as follows:

1(d) The addition of a barrier/fencing to prevent bins associated with the food and drink premises entering the landscaping areas.

1. This will also ensure that the bins are not placed against the fence that is shared with the adjoining residential properties. This will provide an additional buffer to ensure that any noise associated with the placing rubbish in the bins at night, will not cause unreasonable disturbance to that direct neighbour.

Conditions 6, 8 and 9 delivery and waste collection times.

1. The respondent proposed changes to conditions 6, 8 and 9 which seek to remove the secondary consent option as outlined in these conditions.
2. The respondent submitted those conditions should require an application for amendment of permit under section 72 of the Act instead of providing a provision for an application for secondary consent. They submit that the secondary consent approach may not apply the necessary rigor to any requests that may be made and there is no opportunity for a third-party review, which are all key issues in this case.
3. The applicant submitted that is a standard approach for council to take on these kinds of conditions.
4. The Tribunal accepts the submissions of the respondents and has removed the pathway for secondary consent in conditions 6, 8 and 9 relating to delivery and waste collection times.

1. The respondents also sought to change the fuel delivery times specified in condition 6 to have a 7am start time instead of a 6am start time.
2. The respondents relied on the recommendation from Mr Leo that fuel deliveries should be restricted to the day and evening periods, being 7am-10pm, seven days a week.
3. The applicant opposes the proposed reduction in fuel delivery window and relies on the acoustic evidence from Mr Tardio.
4. Mr Tardio gave evidence that Lmax noise levels for transient sources at night would not exceed the Sleep Disturbance Threshold, inclusive of customer vehicles entering/exiting the site and vehicle doors slamming. The highest noise impact would be 55dB(A) Lmax at the upper storey of 17 Moore Street, which is comfortably less than the Sleep Disturbance Threshold (65dBA).[21]
5. Mr Tardio also gave evidence that, even if Mr Leo's evidence was correct and the levels would be 10dBA higher than his modelling, it would still meet the Sleep Disturbance Threshold of 65dBA.
6. Mr Leo acknowledged that compliance with the sleep disturbance criterion is not a legislative requirement in Victoria, however it is often referenced as guide in terms of late-night activities not otherwise covered by the Noise Protocol. Mr Leo also acknowledged that refilling of the fuel tanks only involves the noise of the delivery vehicle on site as the tanks are gravity fed and as such the refuelling process does not generate any noise.
7. Further, Mr Tardio notes that his modelling shows cumulative noise impacts for all sources of noise occurring simultaneously, which results in conservative outputs because the noise limits are based on a single 30-minute noise exposure. He gave evidence that it would be extremely unlikely for a fuel delivery, kiosk delivery and waste collection to occur within the same 30-minute period, though this is what the modelling assumes for the sake of assessing a worst-case scenario.
8. Mr Tardio went even further in his evidence and said that, even if it was higher, at 68dBA, there would still be other noises above that in this location and that applying the Sleep Disturbance Threshold of 65dBA for a location on a highway that may already regularly experience 90dBA did not make sense. Stating that, in this context, it is probably not critical if there was an event that is 68dBA.
9. Given that Mr Tardio's noise modelling is conservative and is still comfortably less than the Sleep Disturbance Threshold of 65dBA, we find that there is no reason why fuel deliveries should be limited to a 7am start time instead of a 6am start time in this location. As such, the Tribunal has specified in condition 6 that the fuel deliveries shall only occur during the hours 6am -10pm.
10. Furthermore, the location of the review site in a C1Z and situated on a main road (Transport 2 Road), with delivery access restricted to Ryley Street and shielded by an acoustic fence. We are satisfied that these conditions make the proposed delivery times suitable for the proposed commercial operation all contained within commercial context.

Condition 14 management of patrons on the site

1. The respondents proposed an extra condition 14 related to management of patrons on the site and as they leave the site, as follows:
   1. Prior to the commencement of the use, an Operational Management Plan (OMP) must be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The OMP must provide for the following:
      • The management of patrons and personal security, including patron behaviour when leaving the premises
      • The management of litter
2. Council considers this to be a worthwhile condition because it is a location where people congregate and condition 10, which addresses noise and amenity issues, doesn't cover it because it doesn't cover the patrons.
3. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that it necessary to include such a condition. As outlined above, the context of the review site in a C1Z, CAA, Transport 2 Zone, together with proposed amenity conditions, we do not share the same view as council and the respondent that this condition is warranted.

Condition 18 Lighting and DTP Signage conditions

1. The applicant and council proposed the following condition 18, relating to lighting:

Before the development starts, a Lighting Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Lighting Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The Lighting Plan must provide that all external lighting be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The respondents submit that the proposed condition 18 is about the lighting but it doesn't address illuminated signs. They sought an amendment to condition 18 that addresses signage to ensure that the extent of illumination doesn't cause amenity loss on interfaces with residential areas. The respondents sought the following amendment to condition 18, as underlined below.

Before the development starts, a Lighting Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the Lighting Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The Lighting Plan must provide that all external lighting be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land, and that signage illumination consider ambient night mode and / or to minimise nighttime presence, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The applicant opposed the amendment to condition 18 and submitted that, in the DTP conditions relating to signage (condition 55-67) DTP are exercising a discretion in relation to traffic and distraction of traffic. The applicant submits that, to say it should apply to these lights on the other side of the site is not the same and it is a different context - it is facing away from the residential areas.
2. Further the applicant submits that there is no illuminated sign facing the residential areas and there is a concern that, by putting these words into the permit, you are going to create a statutory interpretation that you must do something. The applicant submits that the real obligation here is that they have to come up with a lighting plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land.
3. The Tribunal is content that the requirement for the applicant to provide a lighting plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land, is sufficient and no other requirements are necessary. As such, we have included condition 18 as originally proposed.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Display of pylon sign, promotion sign, and internally illuminated business signage.

Alteration of access to a road in a Transport Zone 2

1. Before the development starts, plans must be approved and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The plans must:
   • Be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
   • Be drawn to scale with dimensions;
   • Submitted in electronic form; and

be generally in accordance with the amended plans submitted to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Application No. P1626/2023 comprising the following:

• 'Proposed 7-Eleven Store at 22-28 Ryley Street, Wangaratta, prepared by Archtistic, Job Number 24006, TP01, TP02, TP03, TP04, TP06, TP07, TP08, TP09, TP10, TP11, TP12, TP13, TP14, TP15, TP16 all dated 5 July 2024 and TP05-RevB dated 8 August 2024' but updated / modified to include:

a) include a separate signage sheet outlining the dimensions, nature and finishes of all signage on the site which must include:

1. A notation on the plans that canopy fascia banding is not illuminated.
2. A notation that the banding on the western elevation of the convenience store is not internally illuminated.
3. A notation that the logo signs on the canopy, the pylon sign (except for the electronic fuel pricing component) and the business identification sign forming part of the convenience store are internally illuminated.

b) A notation that all acoustic boundary fencing and the screening of rooftop plant \shall be constructed to have a minimum surface density of 15kg/m2.

c) Screening of 1.5 metres to the acoustic screening of plant on the convenience store.

d) The addition of fencing to prevent bins associated with the food and drink premises entering the landscaping areas and/or being placed against the shared the boundary fence.

e) Provision of line marking or surface treatment to indicate a pedestrian connection between the convenience store and the food and drink premises.

1. This permit will operate from the issued date of this permit.
2. At all times what the permit allows must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of any document approved under this permit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. The layout of the use and development must not be altered from the layout on the approved and endorsed plans without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Hours of operation, delivery and waste collection times

1. The service station may operate 24 hours per day Monday to Sunday.
2. Fuel deliveries shall only occur during the hours 6am -10pm.
3. The food and drink premises must only operate between 8am and 10pm Monday to Sunday, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.
4. Waste collection for all uses shall only occur during the hours 7am-10pm.
5. Deliveries during the night time period (i.e., between 2200-0700 hours) must be restricted to medium and light rigid vehicles (i.e., vehicles up to 8.8 m in length).

1. The use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected, through the:

a Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land.

c Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste or storm water, waste products, grit or oil.

1. At all times noise emanating from the land must comply with the requirements of the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (as amended from time to time) as measured in accordance with the Noise Protocol to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Within one-month of commencement of use, or in the event the use of the service station and the use of the food and drink premises commence at different times within one month of the commencement of each use, noise testing of mechanical plant shall be undertaken on-site by an appropriately qualified acoustic consultant, to confirm compliance with EPA Publication 1826 (Noise Protocol).
3. Within two months of commencement of the use, or in the event the use of the service station and the use of the food and drink premises commence at different times within two months of the commencement of each use, an acoustic report prepared by an appropriately qualified acoustic consultant shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority confirming compliance with the Noise Protocol.
4. All security alarms or similar devices installed on the land must be of a silent type in accordance with any current standard published by Standards Australia International Limited and be connected to a security service to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. No external sound amplification equipment, loudspeakers or public address system (with the exception of emergency sirens/warning systems as required by law) are to be used for the purpose of announcement, broadcast, playing of music or similar purpose.
6. All external plant and equipment must be acoustically treated or placed in soundproof housing to reduce noise to a level to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development starts, a Lighting Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Lighting Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit. The Lighting Plan must provide that all external lighting be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Once construction is commenced it must be continued to completion to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. Before the development is occupied, all new or extended walls on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties or a laneway must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. All external materials, finishes and paint colours are to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. All piping and ducting (excluding down pipes, guttering and rainwater heads) must be concealed from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. All areas of disturbed ground must be restabilised and revegetated at the completion of the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All waste and recyclables must be stored in and collected from the areas set aside for this purpose on the plans endorsed under this permit the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. All waste material not required for further on-site processing must be regularly removed from the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All vehicles removing waste must have fully secured and contained loads so that no wastes are spilled or dust or odour is created, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the removal of any vegetation/street trees, a fee of $6528 per tree must be paid to the Responsible Authority for the removal of the existing street tree(s) as identified for removal on the endorsed plans.
2. Before the development is occupied, following the removal of the street trees identified on the endorsed plans, the nature strip to Ryley Street must be reinstated with top soils and reseeded, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. Before the development starts, tree protection fencing must be erected around the plane trees adjacent to the site on Meldrum Street and as identified for retention of the approved and endorsed plans for at least 5m around the tree (except on the road side) in accordance with Australian Standard AS4970-2009-Protection of Trees on Development Sites, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. At all times during the carrying out of the development:
   1. The tree protection fencing must remain in place and be maintained around any trees identified for retention on the approved and endorsed plans, in accordance with Australian Standard AS4970-2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   2. Development, excavation, construction works or activities, grade changes, surface treatments, storage and movement of construction materials and vehicles of any kind must not occur on or over and must be excluded from any areas inside the tree protection fencing.

to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Responsible Authority may consent in writing to the variation of these requirements.

1. Before the development starts, a landscape plan generally in accordance with the plans labelled Proposed 7-Eleven Service Centre Landscape Plan, 22-28 Ryley Street, Wangaratta, Vic, prepared by Yonder, Sheet 24012 L01, L02, L03, L04, L05, L06, L07, L08, L09, Revision D dated 5 July 2024 must be approved and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must:
   1. Be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   2. Be prepared by a suitably qualified person.
   3. Have plans drawn to scale with dimensions.
   4. Include the following:
      1. Layout of the landscaping and planting within all open areas of the subject land.
      2. Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary.
      3. Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.
      4. A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant.
      5. Provision of one additional plane tree to Meldrum Street.
      6. Details of any specific planting techniques to be undertaken, such as planting methodology, root barriers (including barriers between the development and the existing plane trees to Meldrum Street, with details regarding location, depth, material type and methodology), fertiliser, or any other requirements.
      7. Details of the reinstatement of the Ryley Street nature street following removal of the two identified street trees.
      8. Details of how the project responds to water sensitive urban design principles, including how storm water will be mitigated, captured, cleaned and stored for onsite use and the location and type of irrigation systems to be used including the location of any rainwater tanks to be used for irrigation.

The Responsible Authority may consent in writing to vary any of these requirements.

1. Before the use starts, the landscaping as shown on the approved landscape plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Responsible Authority may consent in writing to vary this requirement.

1. At all times the landscaping shown on the approved landscape plan must be maintained (including the replacement of any dead, diseased or damaged plants) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Plans and specifications must be prepared at the permit holder's expense by a suitably qualified and/or registered engineer and approved by the Responsible Authority before construction begins. The responsible authority will only approve plans and specifications generally in accordance with the current edition of the Local Government Infrastructure Design Association's Infrastructure Design Manual (IDM) and drawn in AutoCAD or equivalent.
2. The permit holder must complete full construction of all new access ways, roads, footpaths, parking areas, drainage, on-site detention, and related infrastructure. All works must conform to plans and specifications approved by the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of the use the permit holder must satisfy the Responsible Authority that any fill required to meet drainage, building, parking and/or access requirements has been selected, placed, and compacted in layers according to IDM standards to the satisfaction of the Council.

1. Before construction begins drainage and on-site detention plans and computations, prepared according to IDM procedures and criteria, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval.
2. Prior to the commencement of the use the permit holder must satisfy the Responsible Authority that:
   1. A legal point of discharge has been established within the boundary of the subject property and connected to the external drainage network according to IDM standards without reducing the flow capacity or structural integrity of the external network.
   2. All stormwater runoff originating from or transferred through the subject property in a 10% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) rainfall event will be collected and conveyed by underground pipes to a legal point of discharge. In a 1% AEP rainfall event all stormwater runoff will be collected and conveyed to a satisfactory destination, without adversely affecting any person, infrastructure, or natural features in or beyond the property.
   3. Sufficient on-site detention has been provided to limit the peak discharge from the developed site, including ground runoff, in a 10% AEP rainfall event to the pre-development level. The outflow from the control device and overflow from any tank will be collected and conveyed by underground pipes to a legal point of discharge.
   4. Any in-ground on-site detention will provide blockage protection for the outflow control device and provide an overflow path should blockage occur.
   5. Any easements required to facilitate future connection to, and maintenance of, drainage infrastructure serving more than one Lot or property have been created.
   6. All reasonable measures have been taken to prevent solid or liquid contaminants from entering the external drainage network.
   7. The facility will operate in accordance with the EPA Best Practice Guidelines for Urban Stormwater Management Guidance, publication 1739.1 and any other publications relevant to retail fuel outlets.

1. Before construction begins, the permit holder must satisfy the Responsible Authority that appropriate measures will be taken to enhance the quality of stormwater discharged from the developed site, according to the procedures and criteria outlined in the Water Sensitive Urban Design Guidelines for the Rural City of Wangaratta and IDM Clause 20.

1. Prior to the commencement of the use the permit holder must satisfy the Responsible Authority that:
   1. Vehicle crossings providing the subject property with safe and convenient access to and from a suitable public road has been designed, constructed, sealed, and drained according to IDM standards to accommodate vehicles up to and including a maximum length and weight agreed by the responsible authority.
   2. Vehicles can enter and leave the subject property while travelling only in a forward direction.
   3. All loading and unloading will take place within the property.
   4. Sufficient parking for all normal levels of activity for the subject property has been provided within the property.
   5. All parking areas and access routes available for public use have been sealed, drained and line-marked to Australian Standard 2890 and IDM standards.
   6. Any internal footpaths and pedestrian crossings connected directly to Council footpaths have been designed and constructed to IDM standards.
   7. When vehicles must reverse within the subject property, measures have been taken to identify hazardous areas and protect people and infrastructure from reversing vehicles.

1. Prior to the commencement of works the permit holder must pay Council an Engineering Development fee prior to Council assessing the required engineering plans for approval, providing site supervision or inspections, and providing written certifications. The fee amount is 48 fee units.
2. Before construction begins, and during construction, a Site Management Plan and Construction Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, and effective measures consistent with the Plan must be taken to:
   1. Secure occupational health and safety; and
   2. Locate any existing underground services; and
   3. Implement effective traffic management and environmental controls; and
   4. Establish and maintain safe construction vehicle access to the site; and
   5. Maintain vehicle and machinery hygiene; and
   6. Avoid the spread of soil-borne pathogens and weeds; and
   7. Minimise erosion, sedimentation, and contamination; and
   8. Reduce the impact of noise, dust, and other emissions; and
   9. Prevent mud, dirt, sand, soil, clay, or stones from entering the drainage system; and
   10. Avoid having such materials deposited on public land by construction vehicles.
3. No excavated or construction materials may be placed or stored outside the site area or on adjoining road reserves or nature strips, unless the materials are for road or footpath construction works in these reserves required as part of this permit.
4. No tree may be removed, aside from trees clearly designated for removal in the approved plans, except with the prior written agreement of the Responsible Authority.
5. Prior to the commencement of the use, all areas, Council assets and underground services disturbed in the course of works must be restored to their original condition, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

1. Before the development is occupied, the area(s) set aside for the parking of vehicles and bicycles, and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:
   1. Constructed.
   2. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.
   3. Surfaced with an all-weather seal coat.
   4. Drained.
   5. Line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes.
   6. Clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and driveways.

1. At all times car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these purposes.
2. Once constructed, these areas must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. All car parking spaces must be designed to allow vehicles to drive forwards when entering and leaving the property.
4. No fewer than 11 car parking spaces must be provided on the land.
5. Before the development is occupied, the existing crossover to Meldrum Street must be removed and the nature strip and kerb and channel reinstated, and any new plantings completed, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority at the cost of the permit holder.
6. The loading and unloading of goods from vehicles (other than fuel vehicles / trucks) must only be carried out on the land within the designated loading bay/area(s) and must not disrupt the circulation and parking of vehicles on the land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Only two accesses will be permitted from the subject land to Ryley Street. The eastern access must be left-in only and the western access must be left-out only.
2. All access to the subject land must be limited to a vehicle no greater than a B-Double.
3. Prior to the commencement of the use, both accesses from subject land to Ryley Street must be constructed to the satisfaction of Responsible Authority and at no cost to Head, Transport for Victoria.

1. During the operation of the pylon sign at the north west corner of the land, the maximum average luminance and threshold increment values as specified in below must not be exceeded:

1. Maximum average luminance: 1. Full sun on face of signage: No limit. 2. Daytime luminance: 4000 cd/m2 3. Morning and evening twilight and overcast weather: 400 cd/m2 4. Night time: 200 cd/m2 2. Threshold increment max %: 1. Night time: 15%

1. Adaption luminance: 1. Night time: 5
2. The pylon sign at the north west corner of the land must be dimmable and have a suitable control system to enable maximum lighting levels to be set or adjusted if deemed necessary by the Responsible Authority and the Head, Transport for Victoria.
3. Where illuminated during the day, the pylon sign at the north west corner of the land must be fitted with Photocell/s (light sensor/s) that measure the ambient light and control system technology that enables the luminance of the sign to automatically adjust relative to the measured ambient light level.
4. The pylon sign at the north west corner of the land must have an Upward Light Ratio (ULR) of less than 50% and the design must include facilities (such as integral baffles) to mitigate upward waste light.
5. No sign content must be displayed on the electronic fuel pricing portion of the pylon sign at the north west corner of the land other than fuel pricing
6. The transition from one fuel price to another must be instantaneous.
7. The pylon sign at the north west corner of the land must not display content, images or text:
   1. Giving the illusion of continuous movement.
   2. Capable of being mistaken for traffic signals or traffic control devices, including red, amber or green circles, octagons, crosses or triangles.
   3. Capable of being mistaken as an instruction to a road user, including the wording stop, give way, slow down, turn left or turn right.
   4. With a flashing background, flashing text, flashing images, blinking or fading elements that create the illusion of movement.
   5. Containing any animation.
   6. Capable of being interpreted as projections beyond the face of the advertising screen such as through 3D technology.
   7. Consisting of present time or other contemporary update information relating to news, weather or time.
   8. Containing video, movie or television broadcasts.
8. The pylon sign at the north west corner of the land and any displayed advertisement must not include any ancillary extension, embellishment or accessorisation within or outside the permitted advertising area unless the Head, Transport for Victoria has agreed to in writing prior to its installation.
9. The use of sound or motion to activate the sign is not permitted.
10. The use of sound to interact with road users is not permitted.
11. The pylon sign at the north west corner of the land must not dazzle or distract road users due to its colouring.
12. In the event of an attack by a computer hacker or similar resulting in unauthorised display of visual images or any other display malfunction, the electronic sign must shut down and cease any form of visual output until the malfunction is repaired.
13. The permit for the pylon sign at the north west corner of the site expires on the date the permission for the use of the land at 22-28 Ryley Street for the purpose of a service station expires, at which time the sign and all supporting structures must be removed, and the site made good to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The location and details of the sign(s), and any supporting structure, as shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. The signs must not be animated or contain any flashing or intermittent light.
3. The sign(s) including the structure and content must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. This permit will expire if any of the following circumstances applies:
   1. The development is not started within two (2) years of the issued date of this permit; or
   2. The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issued date of this permit; or
   3. The use does not start within four (4) years of the issued date of this permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the Responsible Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

[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.

[2] Council submitted that 'this provision is incorrectly stated on the Notice of Refusal as Clause 18.04-2S; it is Clause 18.02-4S'.

[3] PNPE9 plans - site plan, TP-02 (5 July 2024) by Archtistic Design Group.

[4] Town Planning Report by Habitat, dated 28 August 2023, Tribunal Book page 767.

[5] The amended plans adopt a sign height of 9 metres instead of the original 10 metres.

[6] Landscape Plan LP4RevD, prepared by Yonder Landscape Architecture dated 5 July 2024.

[7] Artist impression 3D render prepared by Yonder Landscape Architecture.

[12] Clause 34.01-1, 34.04-4, 34.07-9 (and 52.05 Category 1).

[17] The southern entry gateway approach is identified as starting at One Mile Creek, along Ryley and Murphy Streets to Wangaratta Road/Ford Road intersection, including Ryley and Warby Street intersections.

[18] Evidence provided by Ms Roberts, Yonder Landscape Architect.

[19] Schedule 1 to clause 43.02 DDO, 2.0 Buildings and works.

[20] Artist impression 3D render prepared by Yonder Landscape Architecture.

[21] 17 Moore Street contains a dwelling, and is located immediately to the east of the review site.