Responsible Authority on 29 October 2010 modified by the replacement of condition 22 with the following condition:

1. Except with the further consent of the responsible authority the number of patrons within:

(a) the bar and restaurant areas of the premises must not exceed 300 patrons;

(b) the rooms used for functions and or conferences must not exceed 500 patrons.

Ms Cincotta circulated a witness statement by Mr Lorenzo Rigoni, Town Planner, but Mr Rigoni was not called to give evidence.

The construction of a nine storey building with four storey basement for a residential hotel, comprising 181 hotel rooms, 16 serviced apartments, function or conference rooms, restaurant, café (including the use of the land for these purposes where necessary), the sale and consumption of liquor, alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1, a reduction in the standard car parking requirements, demolition of a heritage building, provision of signage and reconstruction and re-alignment of existing of existing pedestrian subway at 682-684 Doncaster Road, Doncaster

Application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review a decision to grant a permit.

An irregular parcel comprising 2 lots with an overall area of 2826 Square metres known as 682-684 Doncaster Road, Doncaster

1. This is an application to review the decision of the responsible authority to grant a permit for construction of a nine storey building and four storey basement for a residential hotel, at 682-684 Doncaster Road, Doncaster. The application is made on grounds which in accordance with the order[1] of Deputy President Gibson are to be confined to the following[2]:
   1. The number of patrons should be capped in accordance with the Tribunal's previous decision in Iser v Manningham CC (2006) VCAT 2345.
   2. No permit should be granted for the function room because there is already a 500 person function room at the municipal chambers.
   3. Car parking is inadequate.
   4. There should be no charge for car parking.
   5. No permit should be granted to demolish the building effected by the Heritage Overlay.
2. The parties and the witnesses at the hearing of the application for review relied on both written and oral submissions and a number of photographs, plans and other documents were tendered to the Tribunal.
3. The subject land is located on the south side of Doncaster Road, opposite the Manningham Primary School and the car park for the Manningham City Council Municipal Office. The land is within the Doncaster Hill Principal Activity Centre.
4. In November 2006 planning permit PL06/017521 for a 140 room residential hotel in a nine level building with a three level of basement with associated restaurant and function areas at 682 Doncaster Road was issued in accordance with an order of another division of the Tribunal dated 20 November 2006[3]. This permit is current until 24 November 2010.
5. In this application the subject land has been expand by the acquisition of the adjoining land at 684 Doncaster Road.
6. The land at 682 Doncaster Road is currently occupied by a two-storey office building originally developed as a bank with a drive through facility. The land at 684 Doncaster Road is occupied by two-storey office building. The land falls approximately three metres from the front toward the rear southern boundary.
7. The proposal is the for construction of a nine storey building with a four storey basement for a residential hotel, comprising:
   • 181 Hotel Rooms
   • 16 Serviced Apartments
   • Four level basement for 226 car spaces and associated service areas
   • Restaurant for 200 patrons
   • Café / Bar for 200 patrons
   • Function rooms for a total of 500 patrons
8. The overall scale, appearance and setbacks of the building are similar to the residential hotel building approved by planning permit PL06/017521, with the following variations:
   • An increase in the building footprint at each level onto the land at

684 Doncaster Road to; * An increase in the number of hotel rooms from 140 to 181; * The addition of 16 private apartments to the development; * An additional basement level and an increase in the number of parking spaces from 125 to 226 plus nine valet spaces; * One additional crossover allowing a revised "one-way-in-oneway-out" entry and exit arrangement. * A revised rooftop treatment allowing for a full recreational and viewing area for Hotel guests. 9. At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal gave oral reasons for its decision to vary (in a very minor way) the decision of the responsible authority and direct the grant of a permit. A summary of the Tribunal's reasons are set out below. 10. The issues in this application are of a limited scope. However, while there is no debate about the appropriateness of the proposed use and development from a planning policy perspective, it is important to reiterate the strengths of the application in this regard, because these factors directly influence the way in which other planning issues associated with the development are approached. 11. The subject land is within the Doncaster Hill Principal Activity Centre. The future development of this centre has been comprehensively planned by council. It is planning policy that the centre will undergo substantial redevelopment. The structure plan for the centre now embodied within the Activity Centre Zone provisions, identifies the subject land as land with the potential for intensive redevelopment. The proposal to redevelop the land for the purpose of a residential hotel with an associated convention centre is a proposal to use the land in a way which will support the redevelopment and revitalisation of this activity centre. These uncontested attributes of the land and the proposed redevelopment must influence decision making in respect of the various planning considerations which inevitably rise in the context of redevelopments of this type. 12. I will deal with the issues to be specifically considered in this case in the order in which they have the potential to directly affect the possible outcome. The first of these issues is the potential heritage impacts. 13. The land at 684 Doncaster Road is occupied by an office building developed in the 1970's by the architects Clarke Hopkins and Clarke for their own purposes. The land and more particularly the building is affected by a site specific heritage overlay HO47. This building is to be demolished to allow the larger proposal to proceed. Council's heritage adviser responded to the application by observing that the heritage place is of local architectural significance, it has no historic, social or scientific significance. In her view the significance of the place, and the planning policies directed towards the preservation of such places, were overwhelmed by the more recent, and the more comprehensive planning policy directed towards the future development of this activity centre. I agree with this position. 14. It is argued that the proposed on site provision for car parking is inadequate. It is Mr Hardingham's assessment that car parking demand associated with the proposed use will be accommodated on site, except for a small a number of occasions during each year. Where there is a coincidence of high hotel occupancy, fully utilised bars and restaurants and a function utilising the maximum capacity of the convention/function facility then Mr Hardingham expects that a small number of visitors will have to be accommodated off site. I make the following observations in relation to the car parking supply issue: * This is essentially a repeat appeal, in my opinion the approach to the provision of car parking on site in this case is essentially similar to that accepted by the Tribunal on the previous occasion. There would have to be very compelling reasons indeed to depart from the approach adopted by the Tribunal in the earlier case. In my view there are no such compelling reasons. * Functions and Bars do not exclusively accommodate patrons on seats, therefore seats can be an imperfect measure of car parking impacts. While I understand the reasons for council's preference for seat numbers rather than patron numbers, I intend to adopt Member O'Leary's approach and apply permit limitations to patrons rather than seats. Similarly, I think it appropriate to impose a patron limit on the proposed convention/function centre, there are a variety of spaces within the hotel which could be used for functions in particular, it is possible to envisage concurrent functions with patron numbers in excess of the 500 patrons which formed the basis of Mr Harrington's assessment. * I am of the view that a centre based approach to car parking assessment remains relevant in the somewhat unusual setting of this particular activity centre. Most of the cases dealing with the centre based approach have dealt with proposals within established inner city activity centres. Doncaster Hill is different, there is a much greater focus on entirely new development vis a vis the reuse of existing buildings. Moreover, the parking strategy is directed towards each new development providing for its car parking demands on the site. However, this approach has the potential to lead to a very inefficient use of the land. Therefore, in each case consideration should be given to the shared use of car parking available within the centre as a whole. This can include, on street car parking, car parking on public land, such as the car parking available around the municipal offices or publicly available car parking on private land. 15. In this case I am satisfied that the subject proposal will be largely self sufficient in car parking, and that on those occasions when the on site car parking is inefficient, there is ample car parking within the surrounding area to accommodate the small deficiencies which are likely. 16. I agree with Mr Welsh that there are always uncertainties in relation to an empirical assessment of car parking demand. In relation to the uncertainty raised in respect of the number of patrons who might utilise the function/conference facility, this issue has been resolved by my decision to impose a patron limit on these facilities. In relation to the other uncertainty which relates to the occupancy rate for the proposed hotel, I accept there is a possibility that this hotel might achieve greater occupancies. Nevertheless, I believe that Mr Harrington's approach is a reasonably conventional approach to this type of assessment. Having regard to the planning context I discuss in paragraph 10 above, I do not think that the current approach is to adopt the most pessimistic assessment of an important but essentially peripheral issue such as car parking and let it become an obstacle to the achievement of your primary planning goals. 17. It is submitted that the car parking within the residential hotel should be free of charge. It is clear to me that this car park will need to be a managed car park to accommodate the mix of land uses and their differing temporal demands for car parking. It is neither unusual nor unreasonable that a managed car park of this type charges a fee which may or may not be waived for particular uses at the discretion of the operator. The proposed residential is not like an office building in which much of the car parking is vacant outside ordinary business hours but nevertheless it is interesting to note that if the car park is operated on a commercial basis, there is an incentive to the car park owner to keep it open, and make it available to the public uses of other businesses in the area at times when the car parking is not fully utilised by the uses occupying the land itself. This possibility is an aspect of the centre based approach discussed above. 18. Finally it is argued that there is no need for the proposed function/conference facility, because there is an existing facility available in the municipal complex opposite. There is no requirement in the planning scheme for an applicant to demonstrate a need for a permissible use, before that permit can be granted. This is not a relevant consideration in this application. In any event, it was Mr Joyner's submissions, that the council's existing facility is heavily utilised with many of the associated activities being different in character to those you would normally associate with a private facility. This observation suggests that there is indeed a need for the facility proposed by the permit applicant. 19. It follows from the above reasons that it is the Tribunal's conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be varied and a permit be granted. 20. The permit will include the conditions contained in the notice of decision to grant a Permit issued by the responsible authority with modifications which have regard to the submissions and evidence of the parties and the matters which arise from these reasons.

[1] Saunders & Ors v Manningham CC [2010] VCAT 65, dated 21 January 2010.

[2] Except with the leave of the Tribunal, no leave was sought to expand or alter these grounds.

[3] Iser v Manningham CC [2006] VCAT 23