The scale and intensity of the use and development.

The design, height, setback and appearance of the proposed buildings and works.

The proposed landscaping.

1. Importantly, the GRZ4 (Urban Increased Housing Diversity Areas) also includes the additional decision guideline to consider, "The requirements of Clause 16.01-1L-02 in relation to the siting, height, scale, materials and form of proposed buildings." This is because the subject site is located within the identified Increased Housing Diversity Area (IHDA) of Lara and Lara Station. This is an acknowledgment of the excellent locational attributes of the subject site, being proximate to the town centre of Lara.
2. One of the key objectives of Clause 16.01-1L-02 (Increased housing diversity areas) is, "To evolve the character of Increased Housing Diversity Areas (IHDA) through more intensive development." Clause 16.01-1L-02 also identifies residential areas as being suitable for medium density housing with development up to three storeys in height specifically encouraged where adjoining properties will not be unreasonably impacted. To assist in this desired building intensification, the GRZ4 has identified a reduced street setback of 4 metres.
3. In other words, this section of Walkers Road has been identified for a new preferred neighbourhood character which is different to the existing neighbourhood character of older style single dwellings. I consider that the relatively intensive two-storey high medium density housing development at no. 20 Walkers Road is reflective of the desired building intensification for the IHDA section of Walkers Road. This development includes very minimal rear and side setbacks and a 4 metres front setback. During my site inspection what struck me was that the Avenue of Honour trees are the visually predominant element along this section of Walkers Road, and that the buildings are secondary to the visual presence of these trees. The child care centre building will not undermine the important visual presence of this Avenue of Honour, recognised for its heritage value by its inclusion in the HO1984. I consider that the proposed child care centre building is still secondary in visual importance, compared to the Avenue of Honour, due to its front setbacks and maximum two storey height.
4. I find that the proposed child care centre building is respectful of the desired future character identified for the Increased Housing Diversity Areas of Lara. I am satisfied that the proposed height, design, siting and appearance of the child care centre is consistent with the outcomes sought by Clause 16.01-1L-02. Specifically, the proposed building: is limited to a two storey height; is setback off all site boundaries to allow for an appropriate landscaping response; has been designed to protect the Avenue of Honour cypress trees identified as being of heritage value under the HO1984; features a substantially recessed upper floor level setback behind the first floor outdoor area interfacing with the street; features a street setback to the first floor outdoor play area which aligns with the front verandah of the adjoining property at no. 34 Walkers Road, which is well in excess of the permissible 4 metres front setback; and has a design which provides the desired "combination of horizontal and vertical articulation, materials, textures and colours to create visual interest."
5. The applicant also argued that the subject site is not a suitable location for a child care centre, as Walkers Road is not covered by a Transport Zone, and therefore does not meet the local policy at Clause 13.07-1L-01 (Non-residential uses in residential zones) of the planning scheme.
6. I have considered the Clause 13.07-1L-01 local policy and overall I am satisfied that the proposal meets its objectives, which are:

To provide for non-residential uses that serve the needs of the local community.

To support non-residential uses that are compatible with the residential character, scale and amenity of neighbourhoods.

1. The location strategies at Clause 13.07-1L-01 are not mandatory requirements of the planning scheme. The location strategies in dispute are to:

Locate non-residential uses on sites that have access to a road in a Transport Zone.

Discourage non-residential uses from locating on sites in a local access street or lane.

1. Walkers Road is not in a Transport Zone, and therefore the subject site does not have direct access to a road in a Transport Zone. Whilst the local policy encourages non-residential uses to have access to a road in a Transport Zone, this does not mean that a child care centre can only be located on land with direct access to such a road. The subject site is proximate to Lara's town centre and is on a street which already hosts a number of non-residential uses, such as the nearby medical centre at no. 43-45 Walkers Road and the child and maternal health centre at no. 7 Walkers Road. I support the Council's submission that the site "is easily accessed to roads in a Transport Zone 3 (being, Station Lake Road and McClelland Avenue)."
2. Further, I agree with the Council's position that in a practical/ functional sense, Walkers Road "serves as an east-west connection that circulates traffic north of the Lara Town Centre." In other words, the Council does not consider Walkers Road to be either a local access street or lane for the purposes of applying the Clause 13.07-1L-01 policy. This aligns with the Council's Municipal Public Road Register which designates Walkers Road, between Waverley Road and Antares Avenue, as a Secondary Distributor street (that is, not a local access street or lane).
3. The Council's position accords with the expert evidence of Mr Higgs which was that Walkers Road is either a collector street or connector street (and would probably be classified as a connector street Level 1). It was also his evidence that Walkers Road is not a local access street or lane, and that it does connect to a road in a Transport Zone. Further, it was Mr Higgs' evidence that the siting of the child care centre on Walkers Road does not contravene the location strategies of Clause 13.07-1L-01.
4. I also note that the subject site is located just north of the area identified for 'Town centre expansion' on the Lara Structure Plan at Clause 11.01-1L-03 of the planning scheme. This locational attribute also supports the suitability of the subject site for its proposed child care centre use.
5. I find that the subject site is an appropriate location for a child care centre and therefore the proposal achieves the GRZ4 purpose, "To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations."
6. The Clause 13.07-1L-01 policy also has an amenity strategy to protect the amenity of the surrounding area from noise, light and odours emitted from the site. The applicant argued that the proposal should meet the noise emission guidelines produced by the Association of Australasian Acoustical Consultants (AAAC). The permit application material included an Acoustic Impact Assessment prepared by Octave Acoustics who are a member of the AAAC. The Acoustic Impact Assessment included specific recommendations for acoustic fencing and for the preparation of a Noise Management Plan. These recommendations have been appropriately incorporated into the conditions included in the Council's NOD. No submissions have been made which would lead me to conclude that the proposed NOD conditions do not appropriately manage noise emissions from the child care centre.
7. Further, the applicant argued that the proposed parking reduction is inappropriate, and that the proposal should not rely on any on street parking. The applicant considered that inadequate regard was had to the impact on parking supply during rubbish bin collection times. The applicant also submitted that the proposed car parking layout is not a good design outcome as it is too tight, and that the increased traffic generated by the child care centre is too high and will have safety impacts.
8. Because of the issue raised by the applicant in relation to the bin collection times, I conducted by site inspection on a Friday morning, at a time when some bins were still placed out on the street.
9. It is proposed to provide 13 on-site car spaces in a carparking area located at the front of the site accessed from the existing crossover. Table 1 at Clause 52.06-5 of the planning scheme states that the on-site parking rate for a child care centre is 0.22 to each child, which equates to 15 spaces. That is, planning permission is required for a reduction of two on-site car spaces.
10. A Car Parking Impact Assessment prepared by Evan Boloutis of EB Traffic Solutions Pty Ltd was submitted as part of the permit application material, to accord with the requirements of Clause 52.06-7 of the planning scheme. This Assessment was reviewed as part of Mr Higgs' expert evidence and it was his evidence that he had "no reason to disagree with the recommendations and conclusions [of the Boloutis assessment] other than to note that a 'Waste-Wise Mini Rear Loader' is able to move within a vertical clearance of 2.1 metres and thus the general height will be adequate." Mr Higgs also supported the recommendation made by Mr Boloutis regarding the placement of a moving message board to indicate the number of available spaces inside the car park.
11. Mr Higgs' expert evidence is that a reduction of two on-site spaces is acceptable. His evidence was that there would be at least 10 on-street spaces within approximately 70 metres of the subject site available for parking relating to the child care centre use. In addition to this, there are 6 on-street spaces available in front of the nearby medical centre which does not open until 8.30am, after the peak drop off time of the proposed child care centre. It was confirmed by me during my site inspection that use of on-street spaces which are located in between the cypress trees is reasonable. Based on both the original assessment of Mr Boloutis, the review and evidence of Mr Higgs and my own observations during my site inspection, I have no doubt that an additional two spaces will be readily available on-street, located within a convenient distance of the subject site. I therefore find it acceptable to reduce the car parking requirement from 15 to 13 spaces. Even when the residential bin collection is taking place, there will still be amble on-street spaces available to allow for two cars to park on-street.
12. Under Clause 52.06-8 of the planning scheme, the car parking layout needs to be to the satisfaction of the decision-maker, and Clause 52.06-10 sets out the matters to be considered, as appropriate, when deciding if the car parking layout is satisfactory. Further, Clause 52.06-9 of the planning scheme sets out a number of Design Standards regarding the car parking layout.
13. Mr Higgs, in his expert traffic engineering evidence, confirmed that the proposed layout and access arrangements of the at grade/ undercroft carpark meet the Design Standards of Clause 52.06-9 of the planning scheme, and that the proposed layout accords with the planning scheme (and relevant Australian Standard) requirements. On this basis, I am satisfied with the proposed layout of the carpark and adopt the recommendations of Mr Higgs in regards to the utilisation of a car space availability indication sign, convex mirror, and maintenance of the driveway using top up gravel.
14. One of the decision guidelines of the GRZ4, at Clause 32.08-13 of the planning scheme, requires the consideration of, "The safety, efficiency and amenity effects of traffic to be generated by the proposal."
15. Mr Higgs' evidence was that the maximum impact to any part of Walkers Road in regards to additional traffic volumes would be around 30 vehicles per hour, assuming an even split between approach from the east and approach from the west. Importantly, he found that this additional traffic and the associated impact, "is of no consequence to traffic related safety, capacity or amenity." Nothing arose in the course of the hearing, and the cross examination of Mr Higgs, that leads me to doubt his expert opinion in regards to the parking and traffic impacts of the proposal.
16. I therefore find that there are no traffic or parking reasons for me to decide that the proposal is unacceptable. I have incorporated the suggested changes to the permit conditions that formed part of Mr Higgs' evidence.
17. Overall, subject to the changes arising from the traffic engineering evidence, I find that the proposal does not cause any unreasonable impacts, and results in an acceptable planning outcome.

1. For the reasons outlined above, I support the assessment and decision of the Greater Geelong City Council that the proposed use and development of the subject site for a child care centre should be granted a planning permit, subject to a range of conditions. Because I have found that it is appropriate to include minor modifications to some of the permit conditions included in the Council's NOD, the Tribunal's formal determination is to vary the decision of the Council.
2. It follows that this order directs the Council to issue a planning permit with conditions as contained in Appendix A.

Construct a building or construct or carry out works

Reduce the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5

1. Prior to works commencing, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Petridis Architects, received 5 March 2024 but modified to show:

(a) Wheel stops for car parking spaces nos. 9 to 13;

(b) All boundary acoustic fencing at least 1.8 metres high (apart from a taper down to 0.9 metres high in the front setback area) and located in accordance with appendix B of the endorsed acoustic impact assessment report;

(c) First floor acoustic fencing in accordance with appendix B of the endorsed acoustic impact assessment report;

(d) Demonstration that 32 percent of the site area is covered with vegetation as specified in the BESS report submitted with the application;

(e) An amended sustainable design assessment report as required by condition 18 of this permit;

(f) A detailed landscape plan in accordance with condition 29.

(g) Provision of a 'maximum clearance' overhead sign and barrier at car park entry with a maximum height of 2.5m or as otherwise agreed by the Responsible Authority;

(h) Provision of a convex mirror on the western side of the driveway to aide safe pedestrian movements.

(i) Provision of digital directional signage at the entrance indicating number of available spaces at any time.

1. The use and/or development as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. The endorsed tree protection management plan, acoustic impact assessment report, noise management plan, and sustainable design assessment report must not be amended or altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. No more than 70 children may be cared for in the child care centre at any one time to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the child care centre use must only operate between the hours of:
   • 6:30 am and 6:00 pm - Monday to Friday.
2. Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, deliveries to and from the site and waste collection must only take place between the hours of:
   • 7:00 am and 6:00 pm - Monday to Friday.

1. The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the use or development through the:

(a) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land;

(b) Appearance of any building, works or materials;

(c) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, odour, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil;

(d) Presence of vermin;

1. All solid waste stored on site must be regularly disposed of so as not to cause nuisance to any persons on adjoining properties to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. All external plant and equipment must be acoustically treated or placed in soundproof housing to reduce noise to a level satisfactory to the Responsible Authority and ensure compliance with EPR 2021.
3. No external amplified equipment, loudspeakers or public address system shall be used in conjunction with the use hereby permitted.
4. All security alarms or similar devices installed on the land must be of a silent type in accordance with any current standard published by Standards Australia International Limited and be connected to a monitored security service.
5. Prior to the use commencing, low intensity lighting must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to ensure that car park areas and pedestrian accessways are adequately illuminated without any loss of amenity to occupiers of nearby land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining properties.

1. Prior to the use commencing, a noise management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. All activities forming part of the use must comply with the plan. The plan must be informed by and include the recommendations outlined in the endorsed acoustic impact assessment report.
2. At the written request of the Responsible Authority, after occupation of the building and commencement of its use, the permit holder must submit a report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer which assesses any impacts of the site to any other relevant legislation. The report must provide any necessary recommendations to achieve compliance where noncompliance is identified or address any other issues as appropriate. Any recommendations of the assessment deemed appropriate by the Responsible Authority must be implemented within a timeframe specified by the Responsible Authority.
3. The premises must reasonably comply with all noise legislation and regulations in force and the level of noise emitted from the premises does not exceed permissible noise levels including EPA publication 1826.4 "Noise limit and assessment protocol for the control of noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises and entertainment venues".

1. Prior to the use commencing, acoustic fencing must:

(a) Be constructed using lapped timber paling, fibre cement sheeting, lightweight aerated concrete, transparent acrylic panels, glass or profiled sheet cladding, as long as the selected material/s have a surface density of at least 12 kg/m2;

(b) Have no gaps or holes in it, or the likelihood of such occurring through natural causes or deformations, thus allowing noise to pass through. If existing fencing is to be retained, all gaps must be well sealed;

(c) Be constructed with cladding that is prefabricated to be jointed with an overlap or rebated joint (e.g., ship lapped). Or, where the requirement cannot be met, any butt joints shall be sealed with a fire-rated weatherproof mastic or an overlapping piece of material meeting the mass requirement of 12 kg/m2 (minimum 35mm each side of the butt joint);

(d) Ensure that all palings overlap by a minimum of 35mm where acoustic timber palings are installed;

(e) Ensure that joints in the cladding materials do not coincide where multiple cladding layers are used (e.g., FC sheeting over timber paling screen).

1. Prior to works commencing, an amended sustainable design assessment report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the report will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The report must be generally in accordance with the sustainable design assessment report submitted on 5 March 2024 (prepared by Archi Sustainability, dated 9 February 2024) but modified to include:

(a) Preliminary National Construction Code Section J assessment in accordance with the commitments outlined in the BESS report.

1. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed sustainable design assessment report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to this plan may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. The site stormwater system must be designed and installed such that the site stormwater discharge is not increased by the proposed development. An appropriate on-site detention system designed in accordance with the Infrastructure Design Manual may be required.

1. Prior to works commencing, the developer shall submit for approval engineer designed drainage plans for new Council assets, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person and at the developer's expense. Unless otherwise agreed by the Responsible Authority, the plans should cater for all lots draining to an underground drain in Walkers Road, within the frontage of the development. The plans shall show but not limited to:

(a) pits and pipes sizes;

(b) extension of a minimum 225 diameter pipe the pit in front of 30 Walkers Road;

(c) finished and existing surface levels;

The design and construction of the roadworks and stormwater drainage and any other new Council infrastructure must be approved and supervised by Council.

1. Prior to works commencing and unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority, the landowner must enter an agreement with the Responsible Authority pursuant to section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. All costs associated with setting up the agreement must be borne by the landowner. The agreement is to be registered on title and run with the land, and is to provide to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

(a) All storm water runoff is to be collected on site and discharged to the legal point of discharge using a pump system or as otherwise nominated by the responsible authority. The pump system is to be designed and constructed in accordance with Australian Standard 3500 Part 3.2 Section 9;

(b) In the event of any operational difficulties with the pump system, it is the responsibility of the landowner to rectify these difficulties;

(c) Any pump system is to be replaced by gravity discharge if and when available, and if directed by the Responsible Authority, at the landowner's full cost;

(d) Provision is made (if appropriate) in any subdivision for body corporate drainage works, and access to those drainage works to be on common property or within an easement in favour of the body corporate.

1. Where the legal point of discharge is kerb and channel, discharge velocity at the kerb must be no greater than 1.5 m/s with a maximum discharge flow rate of 10 l/s and the outlet directed at an angle of 45o to the direction of flow in the kerb and channel.

1. Prior to the occupation of the development, the developer must:

(a) Construct the site stormwater system connecting to a newly constructed underground drain in Walker St in accordance with approved plans, or other nominated point/s as approved by the Responsible Authority. The stormwater connection must be in accordance with the endorsed drainage plan;

(b) Construct the development in accordance with approved drainage plans;

(c) Provide a 5% civil maintenance bond for a 12 month defect liability period;

(d) Submit as-constructed drainage plans;

(e) A fee of 3.25% of the cost of the works is to be paid to Council for the checking and supervision of these works;

(f) Construct and complete all buildings and works, including landscaping works, in accordance with the endorsed plans;

(g) Construct and line mark the car parking area including accessways and surface with an all-weather sealed coat in accordance with the endorsed plans;

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Construction of the site stormwater connection/s is to be inspected by Council representative prior to any backfilling. An appropriate fee equivalent to 3.25% of total cost of civil works, excluding GST (a minimum fee of $100 applies if the 3.25% amount is less than $100), is to be paid to Council for inspection. Relevant evidential documentation of the cost is to be provided.
2. All internal property drainage must be designed and constructed to satisfy AS/NZS 3500.

1. Prior to works commencing, a tree protection management plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The tree protection management plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified arborist and must be informed by the BLUEGUM Arborist Impact Assessment Report Version 10/23 and dated October 2023 and must include all:
   • Council-owned trees;
   • Privately owned trees; and
   • Trees owned by other parties that are located within 4 metres of the property boundary.
   • Regular maintenance of driveway using top up gravel to achieve a consistent surface.

When approved the tree protection management plan and its recommendations will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

1. Prior to works commencing, a letter of engagement must be provided to the Responsible Authority from the Project Arborist selected to oversee all relevant tree protection works. In accordance with Australian Standard 4970-2009 Protection of trees on developments sites the Project Arborist must be an appropriately experienced and qualified professional (minimum AQF Level 5 Arborist).

1. Prior to works commencing, tree protection fencing must be installed and maintained until works are completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

All works within the nominated tree protection zones must be:

• Carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 4373-2007 Pruning of amenity trees and Australian Standard 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites;
• Overseen by a suitably qualified, level-5 arborist;
• Carried out to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority by suitably trained and qualified arboricultural staff.

Works encroaching within the nominated tree protection zones must not be undertaken without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the occupation of the development, a written statement from the project arborist must be submitted to the Responsible Authority that certifies that the following items have been addressed as part of the works:
   • Installation and correct placement of tree protection fencing 2 weeks prior to works commencing and for the duration of works;
   • Attendance during Tree Protection Zone incursions;
   • Adherence to Australian Standard 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites.

1. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this permit, the permit holder must submit a Waste Management Plan to the Responsible Authority for its approval. Once approved the Waste Management Plan will be endorsed and form part of this permit. The use and development must be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the works commencing, a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified or experienced person to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan(s) must be drawn to scale and show:

(a) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/ or removed;

(b) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways;

(c) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant;

(d) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site.

When approved, the plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The landscaping shown on the approved Landscape Plan must be carried out prior to commencement of the use hereby approved. The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained 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.

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

(c) The use is not commenced within four (4) years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires; or

(a) within six (6) months after the permit expires where the use or development has not yet started; or

(b) within twelve (12) months after the permit expires, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully commenced before the permit expiry.

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