(i) The permission allowed by the permit is amended to include "a reduction in car parking".

(ii) Part (a) in condition 1 must not be included on the permit and is to be deleted.

The responsible authority is directed to issue a permit in accordance with this order.

1 At the end of the hearing, the parties were advised of my decision and were given oral reasons. In this document I briefly set out the background to this matter and a summary of the oral reasons given.

2 This was an application under s 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 seeking the review of part (a) in condition 1 on planning permit no. 2002/7787 issued by the Bayside City Council on 5 August 2003. The permit allows the construction of a new two-storey building with basement car park and terrace at 35 Willis Street Hampton.

3 The subject land is rectangular in shape with a frontage of about 17.5 metres and an overall area of 336 square metres. The land is occupied by a two storey office building. Contextually the land is located within the Hampton Activity Centre. It does not front onto one of the main retail streets in the centre, rather, it is located within an area where uses that compliment the activity centre function, such as offices, are located. It is also relevant to note that the land is located in close proximity to the Hampton Railway Station, bus services and public car parks that mainly provide for short tem parking with limited longer term or all day parking.

4 The building, as proposed in the permit application, provides for about 433 square metres of net office floor space. Condition 1 on the permit requires the preparation of amended plans for endorsement before the development starts. The amendment required in part (a) of the condition is as follows:

(a) Alterations to the proposal as indicated in the revised plans dated 30 may 2003.

5 The effect of the above condition is that the office floor space of the building is reduced by about 100 square metres to 333 square metres. This amendment is shown on revised plans dated 30 May 2003 that were prepared by the applicant and submitted to the council in response to concerns raised about car parking. The applicant essentially seeks the deletion of the condition so that the building provides an office floor area of 433 square metres as proposed in the permit application.

6 Under the planning scheme, the subject land is located within the Business 1 zone. A permit is required under the zone control for buildings and works. The use of the land for "office" has already been established.

7 Car parking requirements are set out at clause 52.06. Under the table to clause 52.06-5, the standard car parking rate for "office" is 3.5 car spaces per 100 square metres of net floor area. The application of this rate requires 15 car parking spaces for 433 square metres of office floor space as proposed. Given that 11 spaces are proposed within the basement, this results in a deficiency of 4 car spaces. However, clause 52.06-1 states that a permit may be granted to reduce the number of car spaces required under the table. Decision guidelines to be considered include the availability of car parking and public transport in the locality, any credit that should be allowed for the existing use of the land, an empirical assessment of car parking demand and any other relevant consideration.

8 In addition to the submissions presented by Mr O'Leary on behalf of the council and Mr Tweedie on behalf of the applicant, I had the benefit of expert evidence from Mr Michael O'Brien, a traffic engineer with TTM. Other material including various plans, maps and photographs was also presented.

9 After considering the relevant matters, my decision was that the condition in dispute should be deleted and that as a consequence, the permission granted by the permit be expanded to allow a reduction in car parking. In summary, my findings were:

* The application of a car parking provision rate of 3 spaces per 100 square metres of net office floor space is justified in this case when consideration is given to the subject land's proximity to good public transport. Further the reduction in the standard rate is also supported by similar car parking rates being surveyed by Mr O'Brien's firm, the results of which were not challenged by Mr O'Leary, and an example of where the council has accepted this rate in another case involving office use within the same area.

* The application of a rate of 3 car spaces per 100 square metres of office floor space requires the provision of 13 car parking spaces for the proposed use of the land.

* Car parking to be provided is for persons associated with the proposed office use, that is, office staff and visitors. In his submission, Mr O'Leary contended that there is a lack of suitable long-term public parking suitable for staff available in the nearby car parks and surrounding streets. However, I find that the provision of 11 car spaces on the subject land provides ample opportunity for long term staff parking.

* On reviewing the public parking resources available in the area, I am satisfied that there is more than adequate capacity for the shortfall of 2 spaces to be accommodated on street and in the adjacent public cark. Although the spaces in these areas mainly comprise short-term public parking, they are suitable for visitor use. Given the ample amount of short term parking available near the land, the low level of parking shortfall, the suitability of public parking spaces for visitor use and the appropriateness of the proposed use and development within this locality, I find that reduction in car parking is justified. Accordingly I will delete condition 1 (a).

* In relation to concerns raised by Mr O'Leary about the design of the ramp down to the car park, his submissions were not persuasive in demonstrating that modifications resulting in the deletion of one of the basement car spaces would be necessary to achieve compliance with AS 2890.1. However, even if this were the case and the number of spaces in the basement were reduced to 10, I still consider this to be an adequate number of spaces for staff use and that the shortfall of 3 spaces could be accommodated on-street and within the public car parks nearby.

10 Given that the deletion of the condition in dispute effectively means that approval for a reduction in car parking is justified, the description of the permission granted under the permit should be amended to reflect this.