1. Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:

1. In application P1160/2024 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2. In planning permit application WYP14434/23 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 76 Greg Norman Drive Point Cook VIC 3030 in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:

Business identification signage that exceeds 8 square metres and internally illuminated signage that exceeds 1.5 square metres

J Cicero, of Best Hooper. Expert evidence was provided by:

• K Twite, urban planner of Urban Planning Collective Pty Ltd
• H Marshall, traffic engineer of Ratio
• R Leo, acoustician

Van Generoso, Operations Manager Sanctuary Lakes Resort Services Ltd, part Day 1

For Sanctuary Lakes Club Limited trading as Sanctuary Lakes Golf Club

M Bartley, of Russell Kennedy - Day 1 and part Day 2

Development of the land for a medical centre and ancillary pharmacy, six (6) food and drink premises, a convenience store, a bottle shop, two (2) retail premises, two (2) office tenancies and landscaping and associated car parking, display of signage, use of the land for the sale and consumption of liquor, and a two (2) lot subdivision.

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

Clause 34.01-4 - Construct a building or carry out works

Clause 52.05-11 - Business identification signage that exceeds 8 square metres and internally illuminated signage that exceeds 1.5 square metres

The site is located on the corner of Greg Norman Drive and an un-named private road, in the Sanctuary Lakes Estate. Part of the un-named road exists within the lands title and the remainder of the carriageway of this un-named road exists within the abutting Golf Club site. The land is currently vacant.

Unaccompanied prior to and after the conclusion of the hearing

1. This is an application for review of the Wyndham City Council's (the 'Council') refusal to grant a permit for the construction of buildings and works comprising a medical centre and ancillary pharmacy, six food and drink premises, a convenience store, a bottle shop, two retail premises, two office tenancies and landscaping and associated car parking, display of signage, use of the land for the sale and consumption of liquor, and a two lot subdivision.
2. Against the recommendations of its planning officers, the Council resolved to refuse the application for the following reasons:
   • The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 13.05-1S (Noise Abatement) of the Planning Policy Framework as it fails to demonstrate how the proposed development will not adversely impact the community amenity.
   • The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 15.01-1L-02 (Signs) of the Planning Policy Framework as the proposal fails to demonstrate how the associated signage will limit light spill to the residential area.
   • The proposal is inconsistent with the decision guidelines outlined within Clause 34.01-8 (Commercial 1 Zone) in which the application does not provide the appropriate provision of car parking.
   • The proposal does not provide for adequate on-site car parking for staff and customers as required by Clause 52.06 (Car Parking) of the Wyndham Planning Scheme.
3. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, Sanctuary Lakes Village Pty Ltd (the 'applicant') circulated amended plans and associated reports in accordance with the PNPE9 which included:
   • amended plans prepared by Caddco Pty Ltd (TP00-TP17- Revision J) dated 23 January 2025 ('Amended Plans');
   • a Waste Management Plan prepared by Lid dated 23 January 2025;
   • a Letter prepared by O'Brien Traffic dated 23 January 2025; and
   • An Addendum to the Acoustic Report prepared by SLR Consulting dated 28 January 2025.
4. On the basis of the Amended Plans, the proposal now provides 82 on-site car parking spaces, which meets the required statutory parking rate under clause 52.06 of the Wyndham Planning Scheme ('the Scheme'). As such, the council no longer relies on its third and fourth grounds of refusal above.
5. In support of the proposal the applicant submits that the proposal is an appropriate outcome with respect to the zoning of the site and size of same. The applicant relies on the planning evidence of Mr Twite, acoustic evidence of Mr Leo, and traffic evidence of Ms Marshall.
6. Sanctuary Lakes Club Limited ('Golf Club') trading as Sanctuary Lakes Golf Club, operate the adjacent Golf Club and Clubhouse building. The review site and the Golf Club's land share a common title boundary. However, in practice, the sites are effectively separated by a partly shared private un-named road which provides access to the Clubhouse carpark. The Golf Club oppose the proposal on the basis that the proposed access arrangements to the site are inappropriate and will have an unreasonable impact on their property.
7. Owners Corporation 1 PS645328R are the entity responsible for the management of the common property within the estate. Other named respondents are local residents who in summary, are concerned about the nature of the activities proposed, and the amenity impacts that they assert will arise from the proposal.
8. Statement of Grounds ('SOGs') were also received from a number of other parties, who elected not to become parties to this proceeding. I have taken their SOG's into consideration in reaching my decision.
9. Having regard to the submissions, the key issues for determination with respect to the application may be expressed as follows:
   • Are the proposed buildings and works an acceptable response to the site's physical and strategic context?
   • Is the proposed car parking, loading and vehicle access acceptable?
   • Will there be any unreasonable noise impacts?
   • Are there any other unreasonable off site amenity implications?
   • Is the use of the land to sell or consume liquor acceptable?
   • Is the proposed signage package acceptable?
   • Is the proposed subdivision acceptable?
10. In setting out my assessment of the issues below, I do not recite all of the material tendered by the parties. I have considered all written submissions, SOGs and evidence, assisted by my inspections.
11. My assessment must be undertaken in the context of the directions of the Scheme and the specific evaluation criteria for the matters in which a planning permit is required. Having considered the submissions and the evidence, with regard to the relevant policies and provisions of the Scheme and assisted by my inspections, I have determined to set aside Council's decision. A permit should issue. My detailed reasons follow.

What is the relevant physical and strategic context

1. The review site is located on the south-western corner of Greg Norman Drive and an un-named private road and occupies a prime waterfront position on Sanctuary Lakes. The review site is located within the Sanctuary Lakes Estate, which comprises a mix of accommodation, restaurant and recreation facilities including a golf course.

1. The review site has a 'L-shape' with frontages to Greg Norman Drive of approximately 32 metres and to an un-named private road of approximately 90 metres, with a total site area of 5,105 square metres. The review site has a minor fall from north-west to south-east by approximately 0.5 metres and is currently vacant.
2. The residential lots in the immediate vicinity of the review site are generally compact, ranging between 100 to 300 square metres in area, and comprising double storey built form with shared walls and minimal front setbacks.
3. The closest services and amenities are located at Sanctuary Lakes Shopping Centre, approximately 1.3 kilometres to the west. The shopping centre has a supermarket, shops, restaurants, food and drink premises and offices.
4. Bus stop for route 496 (Laverton Station - Sanctuary Lakes via Sanctuary Lakes Shopping Centre) is located approximately 350 metres to the northwest.
5. To the north-west are double storey residential properties constructed of brick and render with pitched roofing. These properties are generally attached with minimal front setbacks. They form part of a gated community and are accessed from Sanctuary Lakes Boulevard. There are six dwellings (No.'s 55, 57, 59, 61, 63 and 65 Broadbeach Circuit) that have a direct interface with the review site. These properties are zoned General Residential Zone.
6. No.'s 55 and 65 Broadbeach Circuit have a sideage with the review site, and the dwellings are set back a minimum of approximately 1.4 metres and 2 metres, respectively. The setback comprises the dwellings' secluded private open space area, however, with other useable area to the rear of these dwellings not facing the review site. There are a number of habitable room windows facing the review site.
7. No.'s 57, 59, 61 and 63 Broadbeach Circuit back on to the review site and the dwellings are set back approximately 9 metres from the review site. The setback comprises the dwellings' secluded private open space area. No. 55 and 59 Broadbeach Circuit have solar panels installed on their roof.
8. To the south-east is the Sanctuary Lakes community recreation building, the Sanctuary Lakes Golf Club building and associated car parking. The buildings are arranged to face a central car park, with the community recreation building being located closest to the review site, being set back approximately 3 metres from the boundary. The community recreation building comprises a pool and gym for residents, as well as a café. The café holds a restaurant and café liquor licence (No. 32380715) for 174 patrons and generally trades between 11.00am and 1.00 am.
9. The Golf Club building has a function centre, restaurant / bar and clubhouse facilities. The golf club benefits from a general liquor licence (No. 31950185) and limited licence (No. 36113534) with a maximum capacity of 2115 patrons and generally trades between 7.00am to 12 midnight.
10. Both the Golf Club and community recreation centre buildings share a common carpark with egress/ingress to the car park provided from Greg Norman Drive and the un-named private road. The property benefits from a carriageway easement across the review site.
11. To the north-east the site abuts Greg Norman Drive, a two-way carriageway separated by a median nature strip. Opposite Greg Norman Drive is the Sanctuary Lakes golf course, which extends across a large area from the south-east of the review site to the north-east.
12. To the south-west the site abuts Sanctuary Lakes, a man-made lake.

1. The permit application seeks approval for the construction of a commercial development comprising a medical centre, shop (pharmacy), six food and drink premises, a convenience shop, bottle shop, two retail premises, two office tenancies and associated car parking, display of signage, use of land for the sale and consumption of liquor and two lot subdivision.
2. The development comprises three buildings:
   • Building A comprises a retail premise, and three food and drink (take away) tenancies at ground and an office level at first floor (maximum eight of 8.85 metres) fronting the lake. An awning is proposed between Buildings A and B to provide weatherproof access to the lake.
   • Building B comprises a convenience shop, bottle shop, retail premise, two food and drink premises (take away) and a café in a single storey (maximum height of 7.44 metres) fronting the car park. The convenience shop will have an area of 306.6 square metres and operate between the hours of 6.00 am to midnight, seven days a week. The bottle shop will have an area of 87.8 square metres and operate between the hours of Monday to Thursday - 10.00am to 10.00pm, Friday and Saturday - 10.00 am to 11.00 pm, Sunday - 10.00am to 10.00 pm and ANZAC Day - 12pm to 10.00pm.
   • Building C will be three storeys in height (maximum height of 12.1 metres) built at the corner of Greg Norman Drive and the un-named private road. At ground level, the building comprises a pharmacy with undercroft parking, at first floor a medical centre, and at second floor an office. The medical centre will have an area of 464.4 square metres, provide for four practitioners and operate between the hours of Monday to Friday - 8am to 8pm and Saturday, Sunday, and public holidays - 8am to 1pm. The pharmacy will have an area of 174.9 square metres and operate between the hours of Monday to Sunday - 9.00am to 9.00pm. The office will have an area of 753.9 square metres and operate between the hours of Monday to Saturday - 6.30am to 9.00pm and Sundays and public holidays - 8.00am to 6.00pm.
3. A new vehicle crossover is proposed from Greg Norman Drive that will provide ingress and egress to the shared carparking. A crossover will also be provided to the un-named private road however this will only facilitate egress from the review site, and exit via this route will be controlled by a boom gate system.
4. Waste is proposed to be collected privately. A total of 82 at-grade car parking spaces will be provided across the review site. 24 car spaces will be allocated to Building C, with the balance provided on a shared basis to Buildings A and B. A total of 21 bicycle spaces will also be provided.

Figure 2: Amended plans. Source: Council submission

1. Entry and egress to the site is proposed via Greg Norman Drive. It is also proposed to install a boom gate which will prevent access into the site from the un-named private road, but allow for controlled egress.

1. In Sanctuary Lakes Village Pty Ltd v Wyndham CC [2017] VCAT 672 the Tribunal directed the issue of a planning permit for a three storey building (plus roof top garden) comprising dwellings, and two ground floor retail tenancies. This permit has expired.

1. The review site is zoned within the C1Z and is unaffected by any overlays. The purpose of the C1Z is:
   • To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
   • To create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses.
   • To provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre.
2. Pursuant to clause 34.01-1, planning permission is not required to use the land for the purpose of a medical centre, shop/s (including convenience shop or bottle shop), retail premises (including food and drink premises and take away food premises) or an office.
3. The commercial zoning of the land clearly contemplates a local commercial centre. The proposed land uses do not require planning permission. The proposal will deliver medical, food and drink, office and retail offerings to the local community. The mix of uses proposed is consistent with the zone purpose which is to 'create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses'.
4. While the resident respondents may oppose commercial uses on the land, the reality is that this site is identified as an activity centre in the Scheme,[2] is zoned for this purpose and has had the benefit of a previous planning permit (since expired) for a commercial development.
5. My decision is based on the actual matters that require planning permission. The only planning permissions enlivened by this proposal are:
   • To construct a building or carry out works.
   • To subdivide the land.
   • For the proposed business identification signage that exceeds 8 square metres and internally illuminated signage that exceeds 1.5 square metres.
   • To use the land to sell and consume liquor.

ARE THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND WORKS AN ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE TO THE SITE'S PHYSICAL AND STRATEGIC CONTEXT?

1. The council largely take no issue with respect to the proposed buildings and works.
2. Mr Collis takes issue with respect to the proposed interface between the proposed liquor licence area and the public realm outside the boundaries of the site. A number of non-parties to this proceeding who reside in the adjacent residential area say that the proposed buildings will affect their access to sunlight. Some are concerned about the three storey nature of Building C saying this will be visually bulky and out of character with the surrounding residential area.
3. The applicant relies on the evidence of Mr Twite. His opinion is that the proposed building design is contemporary, with articulation and interest achieved through the use of a variety of materials and finishes. The material and finishes palette is neutral in tone comprising render finish, paint finish, timber look cladding and powder coated aluminium windows.

1. In the absence of specific assistance to understand the preferred urban design or built form outcomes sought for this activity centre (such as any Design and Development Overlay provisions), the key planning policies and provisions that are relevant to this consideration are higher level and more general State and local policies. The most relevant policies with respect to built form are clause 34.01 (Commercial 1 Zone), clause 15.01-1S (Urban Design), 15.01-2S (Building Design) and clause 15.01-2L (Industrial and commercial design). These clauses set out general guidelines with respect to good urban design and building outcomes that make a positive contribution to the public realm and commercial development responds to adjoining residential interface.
2. I summarise the key elements of these, as relevant to this proposal, as follows:
   • Development should respond to its context, including its strategic, and physical contexts.
   • Detrimental impacts on the amenity of the surrounding area including the public realm should be minimised.
   • The function and amenity of the public realm should be enhanced.
   • The interface between the private and public realm should protect and enhance personal safety.
   • Safe and efficient access and movement should be provided for all users.
   • Landscaping that responds to its site context, enhances the built form and amenity, and creates safe and attractive spaces should be provided.
3. In addition to these policies, the decision guidelines at clause 34.01-8 of the C1Z, in summary, require consideration of the streetscape, the treatment of the fronts and backs of buildings and their appurtenances, illumination of buildings or their immediate spaces and the landscaping of land adjoining a road.
4. The site has four separate interfaces, each of which require a different consideration. Having regard to the relevant policies and the review site's commercial zone, I am of the view that the proposed built form is contextually responsive to its location, its interface with an abutting commercial development and car park, its lakeside frontage and its residential interface.
5. With respect to the building form, there is no doubt that this proposed development will appear different in form, scale and height to the surrounding housing stock. But this should not be unexpected, given the role of the review site as an identified future activity centre. Likewise, the adjoining community recreation centre building, and the nearby Golf Club building, are different building forms again.
6. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect the form of development in an activity centre to be reflective of the built form found in the adjacent residential zone.
7. In any event, I find that the proposed development has largely taken adequate steps to ensure that its form, and scale will not adversely impact on the character of the surrounding residential neighbourhood.
8. The proposed built form varies in height between one to three storeys (5.14 metres to 12.1 metres, respectively). The location of taller built form, adjacent to the lakeside frontage and corner of Greg Norman Drive and the private road is well considered and site responsive. Notably, the C1Z does not set out a preferred or mandatory height limit, and the surrounding GRZ1 contemplates heights of up to three storeys.
9. I am satisfied that the single storey and part two-storey form of the proposed building nearest the residential interface, and its siting, would not represent a negative visual impact for abutting and nearby properties. The proposed three storey form (of Building C) is located at the roundabout and therefore sufficiently distant to not be overwhelming to the more sensitive residential interface.
10. The building is appropriately separated from the abutting housing stock. It is assisted by the level of articulation and range of building materials used in its elevations. The building siting 'turns its back' to the abutting residential properties, which assists in both managing acoustic considerations, and providing a level of visual protection to those abutting residences.
11. I am satisfied that visual bulk impacts on the adjoining dwellings will be ameliorated by locating the taller built form (two-three storeys) away from the residential interface. The interface to the adjoining dwellings is single storey, with part of the building constructed to the boundary for a total length of 8.3 metres (approximately 4 metres to the rear of 59 Broadbeach Court and 4.3 metres to the rear of 57 Broadbeach Court), and the balance of the building set back a minimum of 1.7 metres. I agree that the existing boundary fencing (approximately 1.8 metres in height) and the higher proposed acoustic fencing along this interface will also mitigate views to the proposed building.
12. A relevant test for visual bulk in clause 55 is Standard B17 in clause 55.04- 1 (side and rear setbacks) and Standard B18 in clause 55.04-2 (walls on boundaries). I find that the proposed setback of 1.7 metres complies with Standard B17, which sets out a minimum setback of 1.4 metres for buildings at a height of 5.1 metres.
13. Further, the length of wall along the boundaries of 57 and 59 Broadbeach Court will also be under the maximum length of 10 metres set out in Standard B18 (walls on boundaries).
14. I am satisfied that the interface with the adjoining residential area satisfies the decision guidelines of clause 34.01-8.
15. As the building faces lakeside, it provides a two storey form (8.85 metres in height), and provides an activated frontage to maximise views as well as provide passive surveillance to a future shared deck area (which is not part of the application).
16. The highest part of the proposal is the three storey built form (12.1 metres in height) on the corner of Greg Norman Drive and the un-named private road. I agree with Mr Twite that this 'bookmarks' the corner, which is the entry point to the carpark servicing the Golf Club and community recreation centre building. The uppermost level of this building is set back 2.7 to 5.3 metres from Greg Norman Drive which will assist it to appear more visually recessive. The development is set back 3.94 metres from Greg Norman Drive and 2 metres from the private road. The setback will accommodate a landscape buffer.
17. Finally, within the site, I am satisfied that the proposal provides an acceptable outcome in relation to its interface with the proposed centre car park. The building will provide an active interface to this public realm element and provide opportunities for passive surveillance.
18. I am satisfied that the proposal also includes appropriate opportunities for landscaping along each of its interfaces, including to the public realm street frontages.

IS THE PROPOSED CAR PARKING, LOADING AND VEHICLE ACCESS ACCEPTABLE?

1. Clause 52.06 requires that new uses and development be provided with an appropriate level of car parking, before the use and/or development commences on the land. The application now proposes to provide the full statutory car parking requirement on the land.
2. Clause 52.34 seeks to provide secure, accessible and convenient bicycle parking spaces and change facilities, before the use and / or development commences on the land. The application also proposes to provide the full statutory bicycle parking on the land.
3. The council says that notwithstanding that the proposal now provides the full statutory parking requirement within the site, the amended traffic and parking arrangements must still be properly managed to ensure that it remains functional and does not impair adjoining properties or the operations of the surrounding road network.
4. In respect of the traffic and access issues raised by other parties to the proceeding, Council says that the compliance with, and enforcement of, permit conditions is an acceptable means of avoiding or mitigating any perceived risks or impacts associated with the traffic and access arrangements of the proposal. They do not oppose the proposal on access, loading, traffic or internal vehicle movement grounds.

1. For the benefit of this decision, I now separate each issue and summarise the parties' positions.

1. The resident respondents say that even though the full statutory car parking rate is provided, there will still be instances of on-street parking which will add to safety and traffic concerns within the area. The Golf Club is concerned that in the event of a lack of parking within the review site, that drivers will choose to park within the Golf Club car park at the expense of their users.
2. In relation to the eight car parking spaces allocated for "staff" parking along the un-named public road, although these spaces are indicated as allocated staff parking, the Golf Club assert that the applicant cannot control these spaces being used by other patrons and it is likely that patrons of the subject land will rely on the Golf Club's land (that part of the un-named private road) to access these parking spaces.
3. Council says that should a permit issue, a number of conditions should be imposed to ensure that staff and visitors accessing the site do not utilise the adjoining Golf Club car park; and to also provide signage to indicate the method of travel for visitors and staff. The applicant does not oppose the imposition of such conditions.

1. The resident respondents are concerned about a loss of safety due to the proposed access arrangements, with the potential for vehicles attempting to enter the carpark to queue in Greg Norman Drive. They are concerned that cars queuing to enter the carpark will result in backing up of traffic behind these vehicles causing delays and inconvenience to local road users.
2. The Golf Club says that access to the carpark should be from the un-named private road (necessitating an arrangement between the parties). The Golf Club say the proposed single access and exit point to Greg Norman Drive is inadequate to allow for appropriate and traffic movement, and will result in an unreasonable amenity impact on the surrounding neighbourhood and the effective use of the local road network. It prefers that a second entry/access point be required off the un-named private road.

1. The Golf Club submits that the internal vehicular layout is fundamentally flawed as the proposal does not provide a dedicated turning circle within the site. It says that the proposed uses will generate multiple deliveries noting that the standard 'Coca Cola' delivery truck (which supplies bottled water and other drinks) is typically either a 9 metre or 12.5 metre rigid open sided truck.
2. Further it says the proposal fails to provide a dedicated loading bay. Where an area labelled "no parking" adjacent to the waste area is intended as a loading bay, this is inadequate as vehicles will have difficulty accessing the "no parking" area (largely due to a lack of a dedicated turning circle); and once accessed, will significantly extend out of the "no parking" area causing serious obstacles to other vehicles attempting to enter and exit the land.

1. It is well understood that the Tribunal must decide whether a proposal represents an acceptable outcome. The task is to assess the permit application before me. I am not required to find if there are alternative or better solutions, nor is an ideal outcome required.[3] While the Golf Club may assert that there would be a better access arrangement via the un-named private road, my role is to consider whether the current access arrangement, amongst other matters, is acceptable based on the evidence before me and the scheme provisions.
2. The decision guidelines to clause 34.01-8 require the consideration of the movement of pedestrians and cyclists, and vehicles providing for supplies, waste removal, emergency services and public transport, as well as the provision of car parking.
3. In support of the proposal the applicant called evidence from Ms Marshall. Ms Marshall responded to these and related submissions and grounds, including through extensive cross-examination. I do not recite all of this material. Ms Marshall's conclusions include the following:
   • the proposed development has a statutory car parking requirement under clause 52.06-5 which is satisfied by the proposal;
   • bicycle parking is provided in accordance with clause 52.34;
   • the layout of the on-site parking area is acceptable and accords with the relevant requirements of clause 52.06-9;
   • loading demands can be comfortably accommodated on-site (subject to the imposition of a Loading Management Plan) in accordance with the objectives of clause 65.01;
   • the level of traffic generated by the proposed development can be safely accommodated by the surrounding road network; and
   • the location of the proposed access is safe and convenient;
   • there are no traffic engineering reasons why a planning permit should be refused, subject to appropriate conditions which are unopposed by the applicant.
4. The primary vehicle access to the site is proposed via a new double width crossover to Greg Norman Drive, to accommodate ingress and egress of vehicles. An additional egress only access point is proposed to be provided onto the un-named private road, and this is to be controlled with a boom gate allowing egress only movements.
5. The nature of the un-named private road has added a layer of complexity to the issue. This road runs south from the roundabout intersection with Greg Norman Drive. It currently provides access to the Golf Club carpark. The road comprises separate carriageways for opposing traffic each accommodating a single traffic lane. The south-eastern side of the un-named road is within the Golf Club's land servicing southbound traffic; whereas the north-western side of the un-named road is within the review site servicing northbound traffic. The Golf Club has carriageway access rights over the north-western side of the un-named road. There are no reciprocal rights over the Golf Club land for the review site.

Figure 3: NearMap satellite image showing the Subject Land in red and the Club's Land in green. Source: Golf Club submission

1. The Golf Club say it would be preferable for access to the site to be via the un-named private road. However, as part of this carriageway is on the Golf Club title, this would necessitate access rights being granted to the proposed developer. While documents in the Tribunal Book indicate that negotiations to facilitate access over the Golf Club land occurred, this did not eventuate and the application has now been amended to only provide egress from the proposed car park to that part of the un-named private road that is within the review site. In other words, there is no access into the site sought from the un-named private road.
2. With respect to vehicle access to and from the site, having regard to Ms Marshall's evidence I am satisfied that the proposed layout provides for convenient and functional vehicle access. The site has legal access to Greg Norman Drive, and I accept the evidence of Ms Marshall that the entry and egress arrangements onto this roadway are acceptable. On that basis, there is no need for an alternative access arrangement to be required for the land (such as via a carriageway easement over the Golf Club land).
3. The proposal has been assessed against the relevant design standards of clause 52.06-9, and where Ms Marshalls evidence confirmed compliance, this was unchallenged by the parties.
4. Access to the carpark entry for medium rigid vehicles (which are the largest proposed for the site) will occur by vehicles circulating through the roundabout to approach the site from the east, as opposed to the new turning lane though the median. I accept Ms Marshall's evidence that the existing roundabout is capable of accommodating these movements.
5. On the evidence, there is no indication that traffic travelling on Greg Norman Drive would be so impacted by the proposed entry treatment such as to warrant refusal of a permit. The intersection analysis and other material in the evidence demonstrates this. I am satisfied that any increase in traffic can be accommodated within the environmental capacity of Greg Norman Drive.
6. I do not agree that the creation of a break in the existing landscaped median strip to allow access into the site will destroy the streetscape. The nature and length of this median break will be determined through the preparation of a Functional Layout Plan to be prepared to council satisfaction. Any minor loss of this vegetated median is largely minimal in extent.
7. I also accept the evidence of Ms Marshall that the proposed egress arrangement proposed to the un-named road are acceptable. This egress point is only accessible via sensor boom gates. This means that there is no ability for vehicles to intentionally attempt to access the proposed car park from the un-named private road. Those vehicles exiting via this method will then leave via that part of the un-named road within the review site. I find the Golf Club's assertion that the proposed sensor boom gates may be easily overridden to be without foundation.
8. Conditions on the permit, unopposed by the applicant, requires no entry to the site from the un-named road and for a Car Park Management Plan to be prepared to the satisfaction of Council. This Plan would be the mechanism to specify the type of sensor boom gates and their method of operation, and would provide the basis for future enforcement should this unlikely event occur.
9. With respect to loading/unloading within the site, having regard to Ms Marshall's evidence I am satisfied that the proposed layout allows for acceptable loading/unloading arrangements.
10. Ms Marshall's swept path assessments include assessments for a 8.8 metre medium rigid vehicle to access the waste/loading bay area whilst using vacant adjacent car parking spaces (to occur outside of peak operating times). This demonstrates that loading vehicles of this scale will be able to safely unload and then exit the site in a forwards direction.
11. I agree that the nature of the small tenancies are such that many delivery vehicles supporting these uses will be small scale in nature and capable of parking in standard car parking spaces within the site. This is a common occurrence in many small scale commercial centres. While the Golf Club assert that larger delivery vehicles (i.e. 12.5 metre-long vehicles) will necessitate the need for a separate and dedicated loading bay area, there is no evidence before me that such vehicles are either proposed or required in this instance. The evidence shows that median rigid vehicles up to 8.8 metres in length can be accommodated within the site, subject to such occurring outside of peak operating times. Ms Marshall's evidence recommends the incorporation of a condition requiring a Loading Management Plan and I agree that this is an appropriate mechanism to ensure that there are limitations on the scale of loading vehicles authorised to access the site, and the hours in which such access should occur.
12. With respect to parking overflow off-site, no car parking dispensation is now sought for the proposal. Ms Marshall expects the on-site parking provision will meet the demands generated by the proposed uses and there will not be an overflow beyond the boundaries of the site. While she acknowledges that patrons may choose to park elsewhere (such as the Golf Club car park), she says that this is lawful and within the management of the respective landowner. With respect to staff parking, she suggests a car parking management plan is one way to manage this.
13. While the Golf Club and resident respondents are concerned that there will be some staff and patrons that opt to park their vehicles at the Golf Club carpark or on other nearby road reserves, these are management issues that can be addressed by the relevant land manager. The Golf Club manages its own car park and may consider the introduction of parking restrictions on their site. This is a similar situation for the nearby roadways. The proposal has ultimately provided the required number of car spaces for the totality of uses within the review site.
14. However, I accept that a car parking management plan would be appropriate, as a means of ensuring that staff park in allocated staff spaces. The applicant agrees to such a management plan being prepared to council satisfaction.

1. While the council acknowledges that the proposed construction of acoustic fencing along the north-western interface of the land will, to some degree, alleviate the impacts of noise generated from any proposed tenancies and the car park, it submits that the measures proposed to alleviate noise are unacceptable and that the proximity of the proposal to sensitive uses necessitates an unreasonable reliance on permit conditions to ensure compliance.
2. Some resident respondents are concerned about noise arising from the nature of the proposed uses, including from vehicles, patrons, mechanical plant and music noise. Some expressed a view that sound currently travels to the opposite side of the lake, and this indicates the potential for noise to have a greater impact should the proposal be approved.
3. The applicant relies on the expert evidence of Mr Leo in relation to noise impacts. Mr Leo's evidence considers all possible noise sources arising from the proposal. His evidence provides details of the nearest noise sensitive receivers, being the residential properties to the west. If noise standards are met for these properties, then other residential properties located further away (i.e. on opposite side of lake) will similarly be satisfied.
4. With respect to mechanical plant, Mr Leo has undertaken a risk assessment of noise associated with mechanical plant based on typical plant selections taken from similar development sites and found that noise from typical mechanical plant can be sufficiently attenuated to enable compliance with the Noise Protocol noise limits. He accepts that this assessment is indicative only and, if the development is approved, a condition on permit should require a full assessment of mechanical plant noise prior to the commencement of the use. This is unopposed by the permit applicant.
5. With respect to music noise, Mr Leo recommends further refinement of the design detail including either the proposed concertina doors to the cafe should remain closed when music is played within the cafe, or alternatively, the concertina doors should be relocated to the eastern facade (which could then remain open when music is played within the cafe) and a fixed window could be provided to the southern façade. The applicant agrees with the second option, being that the that the concertina doors are relocated to the eastern facade (which could then remain open when music is played within the cafe) and a fixed window provided to the southern facade.
6. Based on these changes, Mr Leo's evidence is that the background music noise levels associated with the proposal are predicted to comply with the day and evening period music noise limits at the nearest affected receivers.
7. With respect to patron noise, Mr Leo's evidence provides the predicted patron noise levels from the operation of the external areas during the day and evening period (up to 10.00pm). He notes that patron noise levels are dependent on a number of factors such as the type of venue, the number of patrons, the background noise level, the size and surface finishes of the space and the consumption of alcohol. For the purpose of his analysis, for the proposed external dining areas which will accommodate up to 50 patrons, he has adopted a restaurant patron type (with a focus on drinking and socialising and patrons mostly seated) as being the most relevant category for his noise predictions.
8. His evidence is that that the equivalent average patron noise levels from the external dining areas will comfortably comply with the day and evening patron noise targets at the nearest noise sensitive receivers with the incorporation of the following noise controls:
   • The provision of 2.4 metre high acoustic fencing to the proposed north-western car park area which should be constructed of a material with a minimum surface density of 12 kg/m2 and be free from holes and gaps.
   • The provision of 1.2-1.8 metre high acoustic fencing to the subject site interface with 65 Broadbeach Circuit which should be constructed of a material with a minimum surface density of 12 kg/m2 and be free from holes and gaps.
   • The rear access doors to the western facade (Take away 5 and 6, retail 2 and 3 and the Convenience Store) should be a minimum of 35 mm thick solid core with full acoustic seals.
   • Outdoor dining being restricted to the day and evening periods only (i.e. between 7.00am to 10.00pm).

1. Commercial noise from the development such as noise from mechanical plant, generators, and other fixed infrastructure will be required to comply with the requirements of the Environment Protection Act 2017 ('EPA') and associated Regulations and Noise Protocol ('Noise Protocol'). The Noise Protocol sets noise limits at residential premises and there are separate noise limits for the day, evening, night and weekends, with the lowest limits normally applying at night.
2. In summary, I am satisfied that, subject to the recommendations of Mr Leo, the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable noise impacts to neighbouring and sensitive properties. I say this for the following reasons.
3. I do not accept council's criticism about the absence of mechanical services design for the proposed development. It is common for this issue to be addressed at a later date, at the point in which the nature and detail of the mechanical plant can be determined (bearing in mind that the eventual occupants of each part of the building are largely unknown). I accept Mr Leo's evidence that a detailed assessment of noise associated with mechanical plant should be undertaken once the plant selections are finalised during the detailed design stage. I accept Mr Leo's evidence provides an appropriate risk analysis that demonstrates that typical mechanical plant associated with the uses proposed can be designed to be compliant with the requirements of the relevant Noise Protocol.
4. The original acoustic assessment lodged with the original application recommended that for any mechanical plant with line-of-sight to the window of a nearby dwelling, there be solid perimeter screening with a minimum surface mass of 9 kg/m2, the screening should be at least 1 metre higher than of the top of the plant equipment, and the side facing the plant equipment should be lined with 32 kg/m2 acoustic insulation. This condition is unopposed by the applicant.
5. I have imposed a permit condition that will require a full acoustic assessment of mechanical plant noise emissions following the completion of the development to ensure compliance with established criteria is achieved.
6. Music in Victoria is required at all times to comply with limits identified in accordance with Part II of the Noise limit and assessment protocol for the control of noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises and entertainment venues, Publication 1826 (the Noise Protocol). Part II sets noise limits to protect 'noise sensitive areas' from excessive noise. Noise sensitive areas include residential dwellings.
7. It is proposed that music is to be limited to background music only, only permitted internally within the retail, cafe and takeaway food tenancies and only played during the day/evening periods (i.e. between 7.00am-11.00pm, Monday to Saturday and 9.00am-10.00pm, Sundays).
8. With respect to music noise, Mr Leo's evidence adopts a 'worst case' scenario with music being played at background music levels across the entirety of the cafe and each of the takeaway premises and the retail tenancies (including the convenience store) during the day and evening periods (i.e., between 7.00am-11.00pm Monday to Saturday and between 9.00am-10.00pm Sundays).
9. Even assuming this worst case scenario, the evidence is clear that there will be no unreasonable amenity impacts arising from music noise. The applicant accepts all the recommendations of Mr Leo and agrees to relocate the doors of the proposed café to the eastern façade of the building.
10. Mr Leo's analysis considers both the immediately abutting residential properties, as well as those located on the opposite side of the lake in Beachcomber Place and Panorama Way. Based on Mr Leo's evidence, I am satisfied that background music noise levels will comfortably comply with the day and evening period music noise limits at the nearest affected receivers.
11. Further, I accept Mr Leo's evidence that predicted patron noise levels would comfortably comply with the day and evening patron noise targets at the nearest noise sensitive receivers with the incorporation of noise controls that are unopposed by the permit applicant.
12. I further accept that the proposal otherwise incorporates appropriate acoustic treatments to mitigate potential noise impacts on the adjoining residential properties, including by way of acoustic fencing.
13. Other noise impacts can arise for waste collection and delivery vehicles. These impacts generally arise from the timing of day, frequency, and the size of the collection vehicles.
14. Waste Collection Noise Emissions EPA Publication 1254.2 Noise Control Guidelines provides guidance and recommendations to minimise the likelihood of complaint due to waste collection from commercial premises. This publication states that annoyance created by industrial waste collection tends to intensify in the early-morning period and to this end, early-morning collections should be restricted to non-residential areas to minimise early morning disturbances. Where a residential area is impacted by noise from the collection of refuse, then collections should be restricted to the times contained within the schedule (being for two or more collections a week between 7.00 am-8.00 pm Monday to Saturday and 9.00 am-8.00pm Sunday and public holidays).
15. The publication recommends that:
    • Refuse bins should be located at sites that provide minimal annoyance to residential premises.
    • Compaction should be carried out while the vehicle is moving.
    • Bottles should not be broken up at collection site.
    • Routes which service predominantly residential areas should be altered regularly to reduce early morning disturbances.
    • Noisy verbal communication between operators should be avoided where possible.
16. Noise associated with waste collection and delivery vehicles will be limited by a combination of siting (Block C includes a refuse area within the under-croft car park while Block B includes a refuse area to the north-western corner of the building), a restriction on the type of waste collection and delivery vehicles to be via a Medium Rigid Vehicle (MRV) or Light Rigid Vehicle (LRV) and restricted hours.
17. Mr Leo's evidence is that compliance with the Noise Protocol day period noise limits will be achieved for the cumulative noise level of mechanical plant, deliveries and waste collection at the nearest noise sensitive receivers.
18. For the evening period, Mr Leo's evidence is that compliance with the Noise Protocol will be achieved for the cumulative noise level of mechanical plant and deliveries (as waste collection is not permitted in these hours) at the nearest noise sensitive receivers.
19. For the nighttime period, Mr Leos evidence is that compliance with the Noise Protocol will be achieved for the noise level of mechanical plant (as deliveries and waste collection is not permitted in these hours) at the nearest noise sensitive receivers.
20. I accept this evidence and am satisfied that there will be no unreasonable noise impacts that will arise from mechanical plant, deliveries or waste collection.
21. With respect to patron noise, this can largely be expected from the use of the external dining areas and from patrons accessing the car park. Noise sources include patron conversation, slamming of car doors and cars moving within the site. There are not currently any statutory or legislated criteria in Victoria for noise from patrons in venues or the associated outdoor areas. The current noise regulations specifically exclude voice noise as an assessable source of noise.
22. The Noise Protocols exclude noise associated with carparks, however sleep disturbance is included amongst the 'environmental values' defined in the Environmental Reference Standard (ERS) tool in the EPA. As such, where carpark activity has the potential to cause disturbance to residents during the night, it is appropriate to consider this noise impact with reference to sleep disturbance targets. Mr Leo's evidence is that night-time maximum levels from voices and vehicle movements within the subject site are predicted to comply with this sleep disturbance criterion at the nearest noise sensitive receivers.
23. I accept the largely unchallenged evidence of Mr Leo, and find that the combination of acoustic treatments proposed and planning permit conditions will ensure no unreasonable noise impacts will be experienced to nearby sensitive residential properties. That is not to say that there will be no noise arising from the proposal, merely that the level of noise is acceptable based on the relevant noise assessment tools and the nature of the land use zoning of the site.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER UNREASONABLE OFF SITE AMENITY IMPLICATIONS?

1. In summary, other amenity-based concerns identified include visual bulk, overlooking, overshadowing, odour and light spill from the proposed signage. Councils remaining amenity concern is that the proposed illuminated panel sign will cause unreasonable light spill such as to impact on abutting residential properties.

1. As noted previously, I am satisfied that there are no unreasonable amenity impacts that will arise from the buildings bulk or noise sources. I deal with each specific amenity issue separately, noting that in the context of the purpose of the C1Z and the range of uses possible within this zone, the amenity expectations of residents living in or near to a C1Z is necessarily tempered.
2. With respect to light spill, Council's concern is only with respect to the proposed external lighting, more particularly that from the proposed illuminated sign. Conditions unopposed by the permit applicant will require details of the signage illumination and the hours of illumination. In any event, I am satisfied that the distance of the proposed illuminated signs from the sensitive residential abuttals are so distant that there is unlikely to be any unreasonable light spill.
3. With respect to odour, I would anticipate the potential for impact on neighbouring properties would be from any café and take away food premises, noting that general waste is to be stored within the building. In my view this is a matter managed under different legislation.
4. With respect to privacy and overshadowing, the decision guidelines at clause 34.01-8 of the C1Z require consideration of:
   • the overlooking and overshadowing as a result of building or works affecting adjoining land in a General Residential Zone; and
   • The impact of overshadowing on existing rooftop solar energy systems on dwellings on adjoining lots in a General Residential Zone.
5. I note that the development would not be expected to impact on the privacy enjoyed by nearby residential properties in terms of overlooking. There are no windows facing the adjoining residential properties within Block B. While Block C will have a window facing the adjoining residential properties, this is located at ground level and separated by more than 9 metres. I am satisfied that there will not be any unreasonable overlooking opportunities.
6. I am satisfied that based on the shadow diagrams, while there will be additional shadow impacts on the secluded private open spaces of 57, 59, 61, 63 and 65 Broadbeach Circuit at 9.00am, at least 40 square metres (with a minimum dimension of 3 metres) of all of the secluded private open space areas will not be shadowed. I am satisfied that the extent of shadow impact on the adjoining residential properties reduces throughout the day and therefore Standard B21 at clause 55.04-5 (overshadowing open space) is met.
7. I agree with Mr Twite's evidence that should Mr Leo's recommendation for additional fence height to that fence adjacent to 55 Broadbeach Circuit be imposed, that this will modestly increase morning shadow impacts to this property. However, as this dwelling's primary area of private open space is at first floor level, this impact is acceptable.
8. Finally, as is apparent from the shadow diagrams, the proposal will not cast any additional shadow on existing solar panels on the roof of 55 and 59 Broadbeach Circuit.
9. It is evident from this summation that there are no amenity impacts that would warrant refusal of the proposal. The proposed permit includes conditions to protect the amenity of the area including:
   • Condition 53 which requires that outdoor dining cease at 10.00pm.
   • Condition 34 which requires the entire development comply with the noise requirements of the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 and EPA Publication 1826.
   • Condition 35 which requires that music is limited to background music only, and only permitted internally within the retail, cafe and takeaway food tenancies.
   • Condition 13 which requires an approved Waste Management Plan which will require waste collection to occur outside of peak operating hours of site and limited to Monday to Saturday 7.00am-6.00pm.
   • Condition 6 which requires a post development assessment that mechanical plant noise achieves compliance.

IS THE USE OF THE LAND TO SELL OR CONSUME LIQUOR ACCEPTABLE?

1. It is proposed to use land to sell liquor at the food and drink premises, and to sell packaged liquor at the bottle shop. The anticipated combined patronage across all of the food and drink premises is 100 patrons (across both indoor and outdoor dining).
2. The bottle shop is proposed to operate in the following hours:
   • Monday to Thursday - 10.00am to 10.00pm.
   • Friday and Saturday - 10.00am to 11.00pm.
   • Sunday - 10.00am to 10.00pm.
   • ANZAC Day - 12pm to 10.00pm.
3. The proposed food and drink premises (café) are proposed to operate Monday to Sunday - 6.30am to midnight. The food and drink premises (take away) are proposed to operate Monday to Sunday - 6.30am to midnight.

1. The resident's issues with the issue of a permit as sought are summarised as follows:
   • the potential behaviours of patrons arising from the consumption of liquor;
   • the proximity of the red line area to public footpaths, and the lack of fencing to indicate to members of the public that they are about to enter a liquor consumption zone; and
   • the potential for users of the public footpaths to be confronted with alcoholic influence.
2. They argue that while the proposal may cater for local residents it is more likely to have broader appeal, and that the sale and consumption of liquor would be more appropriate in the nearby higher order Activity Centre.
3. The applicant relies on the evidence of Mr Twite, which in summary is:
   • there is planning policy support for the proposal's location;
   • the proposal will not result in an unreasonable increase in the number of licensed premises in the surrounding area;
   • matters of patron density or anti-social behaviour are not significant concerns for proposals involving the sale of packaged liquor;
   • consideration of social harm caused by alcohol is rarely (if ever) a relevant consideration under clause 52.27; and
   • the existing amenity of the surrounding area is defined by the commercial nature of the land and its surrounds.

1. A permit is required under clause 52.27 - Licensed Premises. The purpose of this clause is:
   • To ensure that licensed premises are situated in appropriate locations.
   • To ensure that the impact of the licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding is considered.
2. The decision guidelines for clause 52.27 require, as appropriate, consideration of the following:
   • The Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
   • The impact of the sale or consumption of liquor permitted by the liquor licence on the amenity of the surrounding area.
   • The impact of the hours of operation on the amenity of the surrounding area.
   • The impact of the number of patrons on the amenity of the surrounding area.
   • The cumulative impact of any existing licensed premises and the proposed licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding area.
3. Planning Practice Note 61 - Licensed premises: Assessing cumulative impact (October 2023) seeks to provide guidance on preparing and assessing an application under clause 52.27 of the Scheme. The Practice Note states that it can assist a Council and a permit applicant identify and address whether a proposal for a new or modified licensed premises is likely to contribute to a cumulative impact within an area. It further states that the Practice Note may be used for any planning application that would benefit from its use; however, should be used for all applications for a new or expanded licensed premises that;
   • will be licensed and open after 11:00pm; and
   • is in an area where there is a cluster of licensed premises.
4. Practice Note 61 makes it clear that cumulative impact be both positive and negative. Negative cumulative impact is identified as including increased occurrences of;
   • nuisance including noise and anti-social behaviour from intoxicated persons;
   • infrastructure capacity problems including limited availability of transport and car parking for patrons and local residents;
   • violence and perceived threats to safety; and
   • crime including vandalism, trespass and property damage.
5. Positive cumulative impact can include:
   • the creation of a local 'identity' or status as an entertainment or tourism destination;
   • enhanced vitality of an area;
   • economic benefits;
   • increase in consumer choice;
   • increased ability to manage impacts.
6. The decision guideline for clause 52.27 requires, as appropriate, consideration of the cumulative impact of any existing licensed premises and the proposed licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding area, and such an assessment must be undertaken using the methodology set out in Practice Note 61.
7. After identifying the location and details of all existing and approved liquor licences within a 500 metre radius of the proposal and undertaking a comprehensive cumulative impact assessment of the proposal (that followed the methodology set out in Planning Practice Note 61), Mr Twite concludes that the proposal is unlikely to increase or create an adverse amenity cumulative impact on the amenity of the surrounding area. The opinions and conclusions of Mr Twite set out in his statement of evidence were not changed or compromised under cross examination.
8. I rely on Mr Twite's analysis of the cumulative impact of this proposal. I am satisfied that the proposal will not, in conjunction with existing approved licensed premises, have an unacceptable cumulative impact on the amenity of the surrounding area, nor in of itself, have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.
9. The planning policy context for the site weighs in favour of approval of the proposal. The inclusion of the site in the CZ1 supports the use of land for the purposes of the sale and consumption of liquor.
10. I find that on the material before the Tribunal there is no reason to consider any broad concern about the social harm caused by alcohol, the ability for minors to see alcohol being consumed (for example when walking along any future public boardwalk outside the review site) or the potential for the abuse or misuse of alcohol as a relevant consideration under clause 52.27.
11. I have no evidence that there will likely be any particular or significant social effect that is relevant in context arising from the location of the site within a commercial area, in which other nearby uses also have liquor licences. Any fear expressed by the residents of anti-social behaviour in the car park by customers of the proposal was not supported by any evidence regarding existing anti-social behaviour from customers of proximate licensed premises (being the Golf Club or community recreation centre) or any evidence that established that potential customers of the proposal are likely to engage in anti-social behaviour.
12. With respect to behavioural impacts occasioned or exacerbated by the retail sale, both on premises and off premises, of alcohol, this is correctly managed through the responsible service of alcohol provisions required of all licence holders.
13. Whilst there is technically a cluster of licensed premises in this location, I do not consider this unreasonable as:
    • Both nearby venues licenced to operate after 11.00pm are restaurant and café licences associated with the community recreation centre cafe and general/limited licence associated with the Golf Club. Both of these clubs are low risk venues.
    • The proposed bottle shop facilitates patrons to purchase liquor for consumption elsewhere. I do not consider that the nature of this use will result in any significant increase in the number of patrons near sensitive uses at any time given that customers to bottle shops are taking away packaged liquor for consumption elsewhere and are not on-premises patrons.
    • In relation to whether the proposal will create any new impacts arising from the mix of uses in the area, packaged liquor outlets allow off site consumption only.
    • In terms of patron dispersal, there is not a cluster of late night venues where patron dispersal may be an issue and the proposed bottle shop is unlikely to contribute in any meaningful way to the number of persons on the street after 11.00pm or dispersal from licensed premises. There is no direct link between the proposed bottle shop and patron dispersal of other on-premises licensed venues.
    • The proposed hours of operation cease at 11.00pm after which the Practice Note identifies greater sensitivity.

1. The proposal seeks approval to display business identification signage, primarily on the building facades together with one panel sign at the corner of Greg Norman Drive and the un-named private road.
2. I have previously found that there is no unreasonable impact that will arise with respect to light spill from the proposed illuminated signage. Otherwise, Council generally accepts the remaining signage sought by the proposal.
3. Clause 52.05 seeks to ensure that signs are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of the area, including the existing or desired future character. The proposed signage, comprising internally illuminated business identifications signs, is in line with expectations for a local commercial centre. The signs assist with wayfinding to the tenancies and also identify the shopping centre.
4. I am satisfied that the proposed signage is consistent with the policies set out in clause 15.01-1L-02, and that the number, typology, location, and size of the signage is reasonable and furthers the purposes of clause 52.05 in that the signs:
   • are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of the area, including the existing and desired future character;
   • do not result in visual clutter or visual disorder; and
   • do not cause loss of amenity or adversely affect the natural or built environment or the safety, appearance or efficiency of Greg Norman Drive.
5. I say this for the following reasons:
   • the signs in extent, placement and number are dispersed around the building, and located on the elevations facing into the commercial area;
   • the signs do not protrude above the building and will relate to each individual tenancy;
   • the signs are consistently proportioned and spaced in order to break up the presentation of the length of the building. In this way they reduce the appearance of visual clutter;
   • the signs will not impact on any significant views or vistas;
   • permit conditions, agreed by the applicant, will limit the hours of illumination of the signage; and
   • the panel sign will largely be obscured behind the built form so as not to be visible from the sensitive residential abuttal.

1. It is also proposed to subdivide the land into two lots being one lot comprising the medical centre and office building (Block C) and 24 car parking spaces, and the second lot comprising the balance of the land including 58 car parking spaces. No party opposes the proposed subdivision subject to conditions (unopposed by the applicant) that ensures that appropriate car parking and access is provided to each lot proposed to be created.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the decision guidelines of clause 34.01-8 by making provision for vehicle access to each lot. Each lot will ensure that the proposed uses can be accommodated. Amended plans will be required to ensure that the statutory car parking provision is maintained for Building C through common property or other method to Council satisfaction.

1. The conditions contained in this order reflect those proposed by the responsible authority, the submissions of the parties, and the further consideration of the Tribunal.
2. Where existing streetlights, fire hydrants and a security camera on the review site are not shown on the plans, a condition on permit will require that these be shown or relocated to the satisfaction of council.
3. I have not imposed a requirement to fence along the red line area and the public interfaces. This is because this is an issue normally addressed through the Liquor Licensing Provisions.
4. I have adopted the recommendation of Ms Marshall that a Functional Layout Plan should be prepared to council satisfaction to provide the detailed design of the proposed vehicle median break on Greg Norman Drive into the site.
5. The potential for changes in the physical condition of the subject land to impact runoff and drainage has been identified as a potential issue by parties, particularly as it appears that drainage may be required through the Golf Club land. At this stage in the planning process, detailed drainage design is not required. Multiple draft permit conditions require this detail to be prepared and submitted to the Council for approval. There is no reason to find that drainage cannot be appropriately managed.

1. Clause 71.02 seeks planning and responsible authorities to endeavour to integrate the range of planning policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit. Having considered and weighed all relevant matters, I find the proposal achieves a net community benefit. I find the proposal meet the test of acceptability when assessed against the relevant provisions of the Scheme.
2. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Business identification signage that exceeds 8 square metres and internally illuminated signage that exceeds 1.5 square metres

1. Prior to the commencement of development permitted by this permit, amended development plans drawn to scale and dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with plans prepared by Caddco Architectural Drafting dated 23 January 2025, but modified to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to show:

(a) All items to be relocated or removed to be indicated on plans (i.e cameras within local road reserve). The camera in the Car Park Access is to be relocated to a new location to the satisfaction of the Council and at the cost of the developer.

(b) Acoustic fencing in accordance with the recommendations of Mr Leo in his statement of evidence dated 27 February 2025.

(c) Relocation of the concertina doors to the café to the eastern façade and the replacement of the concertina doors with fixed glazing.

(d) Rear access doors to the western façade should be a minimum of 35mm thick solid core with acoustic seals and be self-closing.

(e) A notation to state "Acoustic boundary fencing to be at the full cost of the permit holder".

(f) A notation to state "Any mechanical plant with line-of-sight to the window of a nearby dwelling is to be provided with solid perimeter screening with a minimum surface mass of 9 kg/m2 , the screening should be at least 1 metre higher than of the top of the plant equipment, and the side facing the plant equipment should be lined with 32 kg/m2 acoustic insulation".

(g) Detailed signage and line marking for all car parking spaces and accessways.

(h) Relocation of emergency service vehicle car space inline with other parking spaces.

(i) A table to show allocated car parking schedule.

(j) Amended Elevation plans to show:

1. Acoustic boundary fencing including dimensions, colours, and materials.
2. All internal elevations

(k) Updated plans are required to align with SMP, BESS and STORM commitments.

1. Remove the gas meter shown in the car park as no gas connection is proposed.
2. Glazing Visible Light Transmission of 40% or above must be noted on elevations and the Finishes schedule.
3. Solar panels must be annotated with inclination angle, per BESS inputs.
4. Separate bins for each waste stream must be shown at each tenancy (in accordance with WMP and BESS Waste credits)

(l) All appropriate commitments and initiatives from the Sustainability Management Plan required under Condition 5 of this permit must be indicated/shown within the plans. Where measures cannot be visually shown, include a 'notes table' or 'ESD Schedule' providing details of the requirements.

(m) Any changes as required by condition 56 of the permit.

1. The development permitted by this permit as shown on the endorsed plan(s) and/or described in the endorsed documents must not be altered or modified except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development permitted by this permit and concurrently with the Condition 1 plan submission, amended landscaping plans prepared by a suitably qualified person must be submitted to and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscaping plan(s) will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The landscaping plan must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Caddco, but modified to show:

(a) All trees proposed to be removed;

(b) Clearly drafted at a scale of 1:100 or similar with a north point and legend.

(c) Clear graphics to indicate trees (deciduous or evergreen), shrubs, ground covers, grass etc.

(d) Botanical and common name, pot size, quantity, planting density and size at maturity of all plantings.

(e) Notated planting specification drawings.

(f) Location and depth of all surface treatments with materials and colours notated.

(g) Outline of all built features including buildings, fences, storage, water tanks and utility structures etc.

(h) Construction details of any proposed landscape treatment.

(i) Mark all crossovers.

(j) Any vegetation or structures within the nature strip.

(k) Any necessary removal and subsequent replacement of street trees to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(l) An increase in planting density to the raingardens, in line with Melbourne Water guidelines.

(m) Provide a typical section detail through the raingarden showing how driveway run-off will discharge into the raingarden.

(n) Any changes as required by condition 1 of the permit.

(o) Any changes as required by condition 5 of the permit.

1. Prior to the occupancy of the development permitted, the landscape area(s) shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be planted and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and once landscaped must not be used for any other purpose except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. Any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted and concurrently with the Condition 1 plan submission, an amended Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the SMP will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The SMP must be generally in accordance with the SMP prepared by Hexicon and dated 22 December 2023 but modified to show any changes required to accord with clause 15.01-2L.01 of the Wyndham Planning Scheme and as follows:

(a) Amend the Energy section to include solar panel orientation that aligns with BESS inputs and development plans.

(b) Amend the raingarden diagram to reflect the 300mm extended detention depth.

(c) Provide details of the EV charging infrastructure to be installed (as a minimum, install cabling and conduits to the nominated parking spaces with dedicated distribution board(s) to support the future installation of Level 2 32 Amp EV chargers or fast charging).

(d) Specify in the Indoor Environment Quality section that glazing with a VLT of 40% or above will be installed (this is a pre-requisite of the Green Star Hand Calculation daylight assessment)

1. Within three (3) months of the occupation of the development, a suitably qualified acoustic consultant must submit an acoustic report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority which demonstrates that mechanical plant noise (when in full operation) achieve compliance with the relevant noise requirements.

1. The development permitted by this permit must not, in the opinion of the Responsible Authority, adversely affect the amenity of the locality by reason of the processes carried on; the transportation of materials, goods, or commodities to or from the subject land; the appearance of any buildings, works or materials; the emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, or oil; the presence of vermin, or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. All recommendations and requirements outlined in the Acoustic Report prepared by SLR Ref: 640.30356-R01 Version No: -v2.0 November 2023, must be implemented and strictly adhered to in accordance with the endorsed acoustic report.
2. All requirements/recommendations outlined in the acoustic report (SLR Ref: 640.30356-R01 Version No: -v2.0 November 2023) must be reviewed by an acoustic engineer at a later design stage to ensure compliance with established criteria in report is achieved and implemented.
3. A pest control program is to be implemented for the food and waste storage areas which address issues such as pest exclusion, treatment and control.
4. Waste water generated onsite must not be directly or indirectly permitted to enter the stormwater system. All waste water generated onsite is to be captured, treated and discharged in accordance with Greater Western Water and Environment Protection Authority requirements.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted and concurrently with the Condition 1 plan submission, a Loading Management Plan (LMP) is required to be submitted to and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The LMP will be endorsed and must be adhered to at all times. The LMP must detail, but is not limited to, the following:

(a) The number and size of delivery and waste collection vehicles accessing the site;

(b) The propping location of delivery and waste collection vehicles within the site (must be within a dedicated loading bay or chevron line-marked area), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This does not include small vans and trucks which are able to use standard car parking bays;

(c) Swept path diagrams indicating said vehicle access manoeuvring within the site;

(d) The timing of said vehicle access and egress. All vehicle access must occur outside of peak site operational periods to avoid impacts to the functionality of the accessways;

(e) No loading, collection or otherwise is permitted from the road reserve. All operations must occur on-site;

(f) Loading, unloading and waste collection arrangements must occur in accordance with the Acoustic Report prepared by SLR dated December 22, 2022 (or as amended).

1. Prior to the commencement of the development permitted and concurrently with the Condition 1 plan submission, an amended Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the WMP will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The WMP must be generally in accordance with the WMP prepared by Lid but modified to show:

(a) All respective floor areas to be updated within the document along with associated waste generation rates based on the Condition 1 plans;

(b) Timing of collections set outside of peak operating hours of site and limited to Monday to Saturday 7.00am-6.00pm;

(c) Swept path diagrams indicating vehicle manoeuvring and propping within the waste storage location;

(d) All propping locations must be within a dedicated loading bay or dedicated chevron line-marked area, except for collection vehicles from within car parking bays outside of the business hours of 9.00am-5.00pm;

(e) Any collection timing or vehicular controls required to comply with the Loading Management Plan required under Condition 12 of this permit.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted and concurrently with the Condition 1 plan submission, a Parking Management Plan must be submitted to and be approved by the Responsible Authority. When endorsed, the Parking Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The Parking Management Plan must address:

(a) Directional signage and other measures to direct access and egress to site;

(b) Parking restrictions and proposed enforcement of restrictions;

(c) Allocation of car spaces in accordance with the allocation schedule shown on the endorsed plans, including the restriction and control of access to staff car parking spaces; and

(d) Management of parking for all uses.

1. Prior to the commencement of development and concurrently with the submission of condition 1 plans, a Lighting Report and Plan prepared by a qualified lighting expert must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Lighting Report will be endorsed and then form part of the permit.
2. Prior to the commencement of the use, all lighting must be tested for compliance with the endorsed Lighting Plan must also be tested for compliance with AS 1158.1.1.2022 (Lighting for Roads & Public Spaces).

1. Prior to the commencement of the development permitted, a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted and approved by the Responsible Authority. The CMP must address:

(a) the contact name and phone number(s) of the site manager,

(b) bulk excavation,

(c) management of the construction site,

(d) land disturbance,

(e) hours of construction, including program/duration of works

(f) noise,

(g) control of dust, spoil and debris

(h) public safety,

(i) traffic management plans suite of all stages,

(j) construction vehicle road routes (including full swept path analysis of largest anticipated vehicles to site),

(k) discharge of any polluted water,

(l) security fencing, disposal of site waste and any potentially contaminated materials,

(m) crane locations during construction (if applicable),

(n) location of site offices, and onsite staff parking,

(o) redirection of any above or underground services,

(p) site lighting during any night works.

(q) all vehicle, personnel and equipment access to be from Greg Norman Drive.

Once submitted and approved the requirements contained in the Construction Management Plan must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority during the construction of the permitted development.

1. Tree protection fencing must be erected around the canopy area of all trees to be retained on or adjacent to works (including street trees) prior to the commencement of works. The fence must remain in place until all works are completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority, within the tree protection zone, the following are prohibited:

(a) vehicular or pedestrian access

(b) trenching or soil excavation

(c) storage or dumping of any soils, materials, equipment, vehicles, machinery or waste products

(d) entry and exit pits for underground services

(e) any other actions or activities that may result in adverse impacts to retained tree(s)

1. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the removal of the Council tree, the permit holder must contact Council's Environment Team at treeplanning@wyndham.vic.gov.au to make arrangements for the payment of loss of amenity and costs for the planting of new tree(s) by the Responsible Authority. A written quote will be prepared and provided to the applicant and acceptance of the quote must be provided in writing to Council and payment received prior to any works to the street tree commencing.

1. Provision must be made for the drainage of the development on the endorsed plan(s) to the requirements and satisfaction of the responsible drainage authority. Drainage of the subject land for commercial purposes must be provided by underground drainage systems catering for up to 1 in 10 year storm return periods. Flows in excess of 1 in 10 year storm return periods, up to and including 1 in 100 year storm return periods must be accommodated in separate channels and/or within the road reserves and/or within the provided drainage system

Unless approved otherwise by the responsible authority, all commercial/industrial storm water systems must incorporate measures to satisfy the objectives of "Urban Stormwater Management Guidance" (publication 1739.1, EPA 2021) to reduce or retain in total:-

(a) 80% of suspended solids;

(b) 45% phosphorus;

(c) 45% nitrogen; and

(d) 70% litter/gross pollutants larger than 5mm.

Before any drainage works associated with the development commence, detailed construction plans must be submitted to and approved by the Council.

1. Stormwater runoff generated from the whole of the subject land, including landscaped and paved areas, must not adversely affect neighbouring properties and must be drained to the legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. All stormwater inlet pits from car parking and paved areas must be grated to prevent the ingress of gross pollutants to Council's stormwater drainage system.
3. Stormwater runoff generated from paved areas is to be treated for gross pollutants and oil/hydrocarbon contamination prior to discharging into Council's drainage system. The design and/or use of any such system must be submitted to Council for approval.

1. The proposed crossover is to be constructed to Council satisfaction.

1. The loading and unloading of vehicles, including the delivery of goods and collection of waste, must at all times be undertaken within the boundaries of the subject land. No stopping, collection or deliveries from the road reserve or carriageway easement are permitted. Deliveries must only occur between 7.00am - 10.00pm each day.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Functional Layout Plan of the proposed access arrangements including the proposed right turn lane in Greg Norman Drive, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.

1. All vehicles must enter/exit the site in a forward direction.

1. Areas set aside for the parking and movement of vehicles as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be maintained in a usable and safe condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and made available for such use and must not be used for any other purpose.
2. Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and drives must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised in accordance with the endorsed plan and must be drained and provided with an impervious all-weather seal coat. The areas must be constructed, drained and maintained in a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The boundaries of all car spaces, access and egress lanes and the direction in which vehicles should proceed along the lanes must at all times be clearly indicated on the ground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Goods, equipment or machinery or any other structure must not be erected or stored or left exposed outside a building, including walkways, car parking and landscape areas so as to be visible from any public road or thoroughfare unless otherwise approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Outdoor lighting, including the pylon sign, must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority such that no direct light is emitted outside the boundaries of the subject land.

1. Any security lighting is to be connected to a sensor so that illumination of the site is not continuous.

1. The entire development must comply with the noise requirements of the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 and EPA Publication 1826.
2. Unless with the prior written approval of the Responsible Authority, the playing of music is limited to background music only, and only permitted internally within the retail, cafe and takeaway food tenancies.

1. Any equipment required for refrigeration, air-conditioning, heating and the like must be located on the subject land and must be suitably insulated for the purpose of reducing noise emissions, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The permit holder/occupier must promptly remove or obliterate any graffiti on the subject site which is visible to the public and keep the site free from graffiti at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. All buildings and works must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Any walls and/or spaces accessible to the public and considered high risk must be treated in accordance with Safer Design and CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) Principles. Where appropriate the following measures must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

(a) Use of textured or rough services that make it difficult to apply graffiti.

(b) Use of permeable fencing instead of solid walls.

(c) Construct buildings with high-density, low absorbency materials.

(d) Use anti-graffiti coating to protect the surface when building or revitalising the walls (including façade and fencing).

(e) Install sensor lighting and/or enhance surveillance to deter graffitists.

(f) Break up large surfaces to minimise the canvas available for graffitists.

(g) Use measures to make the surface less accessible to the public.

1. An adequate number of rubbish bins, accessible to the public, are to be supplied in the vicinity to prevent litter to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All car parking, accessways and landscaped areas must be maintained free from litter.

1. The development permitted by this permit must not be occupied until:

(a) The development is constructed in accordance with all relevant endorsed documents required under this permit; including development plans, streetscape plans, waste management plan, loading management plan, sustainability management plan etc.

(b) The parking area(s) shown on the endorsed plan(s) have been constructed to the requirements and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(c) The streetscape area(s) shown on the endorsed plan(s) have been constructed to the requirements and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and at no cost to the Responsible Authority.

1. The sign(s) permitted by this permit as shown in the endorsed plan(s) and/or described in the endorsed documents must not be altered or modified (for any reason) except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Unless with the prior written approval of the Responsible Authority, signage must not be illuminated between the hours of 12:00am and 6:00am.
2. Flashing or intermittent light must not be used in the sign(s) permitted by this permit.
3. External sign lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority such that no direct light is emitted outside the boundaries of the subject land.
4. The sign shall not be reflective or animated.
5. Bunting, streamers, flags, windvanes or similar material must not be displayed except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
6. The sign(s) permitted by this permit must be maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. The panel sign must not:

(a) dazzle or distract drivers due to its colouring;

(b) be able to be mistaken for a traffic signal because it has, for example, red circles, octagons, crosses or triangles; or

(c) be able to be mistaken as an instruction to drivers.

1. The sign(s) as permitted by this permit will expire fifteen (15) years from the date this permit is issued unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.

1. No more than 4 persons providing health services (inclusive of a pharmacist) may work on the premises at any one time.

No layout alteration - liquor license (red line plan)

1. The use permitted by this permit as shown on the endorsed plan(s) and/or described in the endorsed documents must not be altered or modified (for any reason) except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Outdoor dining must not occur outside the hours of 7.00am-10.00pm on each day.

1. The operator must comply with any conditions set by the Liquor Licensing Authority.

1. The use permitted by this permit must not, in the opinion of the Responsible Authority, adversely affect the amenity of the locality

1. A plan of subdivision must not be lodged with the Council for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 until a modified plan has been submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plan must be generally in accordance with the plans by Caddco Architectural drafting dated 23 January 20254 but modified to show:

(a) At-grade car spaces outside of Block C within common property;

(b) Dimensions of both lots and their boundaries, and

(c) Common property areas with the development plans.

Certified Plans to be referred under S8 of Subdivision Act

1. The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic) must be referred to the relevant authority in accordance with Section 8 of that Act.

Agreement with relevant authorities for utility services

1. The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities, electricity, gas and telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with that authority's requirements and relevant legislation at the time.

1. All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or required utility services, drainage and roads on the land must be set aside in the plan of subdivision submitted for certification in favour of the relevant authority or owner for which the easement or site is to be created.

1. Prior to the issue of a statement of compliance, each lot created by the subdivision permitted by this permit must be provided with reticulated water, sewerage and electricity, roads and drainage to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance each lot is required to be connected to Council's underground stormwater drainage system or a legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance the development must be completed in accordance with this Planning Permit including:

(a) Construct all the parking areas, access lanes, driveways and associated works shown on the plan such that they are:

1. constructed and available for use in accordance with the plan approved by the Responsible Authority; and
2. formed to such levels and drained so that they can be used in accordance with the plan; and
3. treated with an all-weather seal; and

(b) Complete the landscaping on the site in accordance with the endorsed plans. The landscaped areas shown on the endorsed plans must be planted and maintained to and once completed must not be used for any other purpose.

(c) Construct the site stormwater and drainage system to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with:

(a) telecommunications network or service provider for the provision of telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the provider's requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and

(b) a suitably qualified person for the provision of fibre ready telecommunication facilities to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.

1. Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, the owner of the land must provide written confirmation from:

(a) a telecommunications network or service provider that all lots are connected to or are ready for connection to telecommunications services in accordance with the provider's requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and

(b) a suitably qualified person that fibre ready telecommunication facilities have been provided in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.

1. The subdivision permitted by this permit must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies;

(a) The development is not commenced within two (2) years of the date of this permit; or

(b) The development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit.

(c) The Plan of Subdivision is not certified within two (2) years of the date of this permit; or

(d) If the subdivision permitted by this permit is not completed within five (5) years from the date of the certification of the Plan of Subdivision

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing whereby either of the following instances apply:

1. before or within six (6) months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet commenced; or
2. within twelve (12) months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully commenced before the permit expires.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits provided to 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.

1. [2] Clause 02.04 (Strategic Framework Plan) identifies a planned activity centre 'Boulevard' at the subject site within Map 5 - Activity centres existing and planned.

[3] Knox City Council v Tulcany Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 375.