The King David School v Stonnington CC [2009] VCAT 558

The King David School v Stonnington CC [2009] VCAT 558 | Case summary | Zoe

[33]

The King David School currently has 4 school campuses in the City of Stonnington[1]. Kooyong Road's campus contains an early learning centre, prep and years 1 and 2; 517 Orrong Road contains years 3 to 8; Dandenong Road contains years 9 to 12; and 520 Orrong Road provides classrooms used by some students from 517 Orrong Road and Dandenong Road campuses. Ms Bernshaw advised the school's long term development and sustainability requires consolidation of the campuses and upgrading of the facilities. As such, this planning application seeks to consolidate the school campuses around Orrong and Dandenong Roads by relocating the early learning centre, prep and years 1 & 2 from the Kooyong Road campus to the Orrong Road campuses at 517 and 520 Orrong Road. The Kooyong Road campus would then be closed. This planning application also contains a number of improvements to the school's existing facilities.
At present, the Magid Campus at 517-519 Orrong Road comprises five titles including 1, 3 and 5 Karbarook Avenue. This campus has an area of 0.97 hectares and contains the following:
- A two storey red brick building at the east end fronting Orrong Road used for school administration and classrooms;
- An historic mansion building (Larnook Mansion) centrally located on the site which is used for a range of school purposes;
- Sports fields and play areas in the west and south parts of the site;
- Frontages to Stawell Street to the west and south, Karbarook Avenue to the south, and Vail Street to the west; and
- A drop off circular driveway on the site with access and egress from Karbarook Avenue.
The Minimbah Campus at 520 Orrong Road contains a three storey cream brick building, some of which is currently being used as part of the school. This site has an area of 2,594 square metres and two separate vehicle driveways onto Orrong Road.
There is a signalised[2] pedestrian crossing across Orrong Road that provides safe pedestrian access between the Magid and Minimbah campuses.
The Magid Campus is restricted by planning permits to 350 students and the Minimbah Campus is restricted to 54 students out of the 350 allowed on the Magid Campus.

[34]

In summary, it is proposed that 520 Orrong Road will contain the early learning centre, classrooms associated with performing arts, visual arts and technology, and a 300 seat auditorium. 517 Orrong Road will comprise the prep to year 8 classrooms and sports fields/play areas.
The intention is for this planning permit to be an 'omnibus permit' that contains all relevant planning permissions already granted to both campuses, as well as the planning permissions specifically being sought in this proposal. This means this proposal seeks to use 517-519 Orrong Road, 1, 3 and 5 Karbarook Avenue, and 520 Orrong Road as an education centre (including an early learning centre, primary and secondary school - up to and including year 8) with associated demolition, buildings and works, business identification signage, car parking and altered access to Orrong Road.
At the Magid Campus, it is proposed to demolish the two storey building fronting Orrong Road and refurbish Larnook Mansion. In place of the demolished building , a new three storey building will be constructed, attached to Larnook Mansion, containing classrooms, staff preparation areas, locker rooms, meeting rooms and associated amenities.
At the Minimbah Campus, it is proposed to demolish the existing building and construct a three storey building with two levels of basement car parking containing 80 car spaces. A circular driveway with a parallel loading area is provided off Orrong Road. The exit from this driveway is a dual entry/exit, providing direct entry to the basement as well as the exit from the circular driveway and the basement. This building will contain an early learning centre, a gallery, administration, a 300 seat auditorium, and classrooms that will be used by all students, including the senior campus students in Dandenong Road.
As part of this application, it is proposed to increase the total staff numbers on the Orrong Road campuses to 72, and to increase the total student numbers on the Orrong Road campuses to 634 including a maximum of 100 early learning centre students. The planning application documentation states school administration will occur between the hours of 7:30am and 6:30pm seven days a week; students will be on the campuses between 8:00am and 4:30pm Monday to Friday; and the auditorium will be used between 6:30pm and 11:00pm seven days a week.

[36]

The Magid and Minimbah campuses are contained within a Residential 1 Zone under the Stonnington Planning Scheme ('the Planning Scheme'). Planning permission is required to use land as an education centre. The Magid campus and part of the Minimbah campus already have permits for use as an education centre, albeit with some existing limits on student and staff numbers. In this case, it means permission is required to, amongst others, use the balance of the Minimbah campus at 520 Orrong Road as an education centre as well as an early learning centre; and to increase the student and staff numbers on both campuses.
Educational uses such as schools are specifically provided for in the objectives of the Residential 1 Zone "in appropriate locations". This is a key issue in this case. The Council and the residents are concerned about the appropriateness of allowing this school to consolidate and grow in this location given the perceived impacts upon the surrounding residential neighbourhood.
There is planning policy support for schools to locate and grow in residential areas. State planning policy seeks to assist the integration of education facilities within local communities and the Municipal Strategic Statement acknowledges the importance of institutional uses (including schools) within Stonnington. The objectives of the Institutional Uses local planning policy build on this by seeking to accommodate the future use and development needs of institutional uses, whilst ensuring they take place in an orderly manner and are complementary to the surrounding residential context.
The co-location or clustering of school campuses is a desirable outcome for a school and we acknowledge the evidence of Ms Bernshaw and Mr McGauran that it creates opportunities to improve the facilities and activities of a school. In our opinion, the clustering of school campuses can also be good for the broader community as it focuses the school's facilities and activities into one area. However, in saying this, we are cognisant of the fact that the community immediately surrounding the school will encounter impacts from the clustering of the school activities.
This planning application seeks approval for an 'omnibus permit', which would apply to both the Magid and Minimbah campuses. The principle issue in this case is whether the impacts of the proposed new buildings and the proposed increase in student and staff numbers upon the surrounding residential neighbourhood are reasonable having regard to the various planning controls and policies that must be considered.
In summary, having considered the various issues (and impacts) raised by the Council and the residents, we find this planning application should be refused. Issues of particular concern to us are the building bulk impact of the new building on the Minimbah campus; and the car parking, drop off and pick up arrangements associated with the increase in student numbers by relocating prep to year 2 students to the Magid campus. We are cognisant that the school may well wish to pursue other permit application(s) for these campuses in light of the reasons for our decision. We hope our reasons will assist the Council, the residents and the school in understanding our findings on all of the issues raised, particularly when considering the merits of any future permit applications.

[38]

The purpose of the Residential 1 Zone specifically encourages "residential development" to respect the neighbourhood character, but is silent about educational and other non-residential development. However, Mr O'Farrell pointed out the Municipal Strategic Statement encourages all development in residential areas to display good design and reflect the surrounding streetscape[4]; and the Urban Design local planning policy contains an objective to ensure all new development is respectful of the existing character and streetscape, and makes a positive contribution to the built form of the area[5].
In regard to the existing streetscape character, Mr Hunter submitted the existing buildings at 517 and 520 Orrong Road fit in because one is a house and the other has the appearance of a large house. Mr Kornhauser acknowledged there is a block of flats on the corner of Karbarook Avenue and Orrong Road but submitted the character of Orrong Road is otherwise mainly one and two storey houses. Mr O'Farrell pointed out the Urban Design policy seeks new buildings that are not significantly higher than surrounding buildings, with any parts over two storeys setback behind the front façade to minimise impacts on the streetscape.
Mr McGauran stated the height, scale and setbacks of the proposed buildings are not that different to existing buildings found along Orrong Road, within which there is a vast array of building setbacks from all boundaries and building styles/eras. We agree and note from our inspections of the surrounding neighbourhood there is much variety in the building stock. Whilst the majority of buildings are two storey, the variation in styles and eras creates an eclectic, and what we would describe as a robust, streetscape that is capable of absorbing contemporary, respectful buildings.
Mr McGauran described the proposed buildings as 'talking to each other' and saw a benefit in a design outcome where the school's presence is affirmed on both sides of Orrong Road. We agree new buildings on each side of Orrong Road will contribute to a coherence in the streetscape. Mr McGauran stated the buildings acknowledge the surrounding context in a contemporary way[6], particularly given that Orrong Road is not a streetscape of striking coherence. He described the proposal as containing highly transparent, permeable and reflective materials that compliment the neighbourhood character. We agree with Mr McGauran the proposed buildings are of a higher quality than the existing buildings to be demolished on each campus. They are institutional buildings, but we are of the view the front façade design, the setbacks around the front of each building, and the landscaping opportunities with these setbacks are respectful of the existing streetscape character, and will make a positive contribution to the built form of the area.

[40]

Mr Mannix's property at 515 Orrong Road is bounded on two sides by the Magid Campus and he expressed concern the bulk of the new building (to be built adjacent to his north side boundary) will enclose his property and result in a loss of privacy. He pointed out there are approximately 20 to 25 windows proposed along the southern side of the new building overlooking his property. Mr Mannix's house is setback from the boundary between 2.2 and 2.8 metres[7], and it has a number of northern living area windows that face the proposed building. There is also a pool in his back garden that is located close to his north (side) and rear boundaries with the school.
The first matter we have considered is the fact that the proposed building will replace an existing school building that contains classrooms. We have viewed the existing building from Mr Mannix's property; and we have stood at the end of the first floor corridor of this building (adjacent to the rear of Mr Mannix's property). The ground and first floor levels of the existing building are setback a minimum of 1.0 metre from Mr Mannix's property for a length of approximately 16.8 metres[8], with a rear single storey section built on the boundary for a length of about 3.0 metres. The ground floor of the proposed building will be setback 1.6 metres for a length of approximately 24.5 metres, with a rear section built to the boundary for a length of about 10.4 metres. At first and second floor levels, the setback increases to 4.645 metres except for a rear staircase that is setback 2.525 metres.
Mr McGurn and Mr McGauran both stated the proposed buildings should comply with the various wall height and setback standards of clause 55[9]. For 517 Orrong Road, this means compliance with standard B20 on its southern side[10] (with Mr Mannix's property); and for the remainder of this building and the building at 520 Orrong Road, it means compliance with standard B17[11].
Mr McGurn pointed out the new building at 517 Orrong Road has been designed to comply with standard B17 rather than B20, which means modifications are required to the top (third) floor as the wall height is about 1.2 metres higher than it should be. Mr McGurn explained this building contains a parapet that is quite high and could be removed to achieve standard B20 compliance without any significant impact upon the proposed building. We find this change is desirable to provide adequate solar access to Mr Mannix's north facing windows, and should be incorporated into any future proposal.
Whilst the proposed building is taller than the existing building[12], we are of the opinion it will provide a good level of amenity to Mr Mannix's property. There is a larger setback between Mr Mannix's house and the proposed building, which creates opportunities on both sides of the property boundary for the planting of new vegetation, including canopy trees[13]. The first and second floor windows have obscure glazing or sill heights to 1.7 metres above the floor levels to limit direct overlooking. This accords with the relevant standard in clause 55 and is an improvement upon the existing situation where first floor windows have a direct view of Mr Mannix's property. The windows and walls facing Mr Mannix's property are all proposed to be acoustically treated, which is another improvement upon the existing situation. Subject to changing the height of the top floor to provide adequate solar access to Mr Mannix's north facing windows, we are satisfied the design of the proposed new building at 517 Orrong Road is appropriate.

[42]

In our opinion, the design of a new building at 520 Orrong Road is more challenging than at 517 Orrong Road because it has a greater number of residential interfaces[14] and there are a range of facilities[15] to be accommodated within the building that have their own design needs and, therefore, challenges.
The immediate residential interface comprises:
- Dr Marks' property abutting part of the northern side boundary with a swimming pool, small service area and back garden adjacent to this boundary;
- Mr and Mrs Cato's property that abuts 520 Orrong Road along the majority of their western side boundary and along all of their southern rear boundary. Part of their house and their back garden (including a swimming pool) are adjacent to these boundaries;
- To the rear of 520 Orrong Road is the back garden of Mr McLean's property and part of the back garden of Mr and Mrs Pahlow's property; and
- There are varying ground level differences between each abutting residential property and 520 Orrong Road.
The residents of each of these properties expressed concern about the visual bulk impact of the new building upon their amenity. As stated in paragraph 30, Mr McGurn and Mr McGauran each gave evidence the design of this building should comply with standard B17 of clause 55. They both acknowledged the rear section of this building, adjacent to the rear boundary of Mr and Mrs Cato's property,[16]s unlikely16 to comply with standard B17. The proposal includes a basement that projects approximately 1.0 metre out of the ground next to Mr and Mrs Cato's r[17]r boundary17, with three levels of the building (including the ground floor undercroft outdoor play area) above this. The substituted amended plans now also include a three storey stairwell adjacent to the southwest corner of Mr and Mrs Cato's property which, again, does not comply with standard B17. There are no sections provided in proximity to Mr and Mrs Cato's property, either from their side (west) boundary or their rear boundary, to ascertain the extent of non compliance. However, Mr McGurn and Mr McGauran each expressed the opinion that compliance could be achieved without significant change to the building.
The lack of detail on the extent of non-compliance creates some uncertainty in our minds as to the extent of change that may be required to the building in order to comply with standard B17 (for example, the staircase may need to be relocated if it is to extend over three levels and its relocation may impact upon the configuration of classrooms). In any event, we are of the view consideration of the visual bulk impact of this building involves more than just technical compliance with clause 55 standards.
Visual bulk is a broad planning term used to describe the impression that a building will make on its surrounds. As such, it requires a subjective analysis as well as a technical analysis. The subjective analysis in this case includes the characteristics of the site itself, the surrounding context and the form and use of the proposed building. The existing side and rear boundaries of this site consist largely of average height paling fencing[18] and no vegetation of any significance. The surrounding context is characterised by secluded back gardens that are often set at a lower ground level than 520 Orrong Road. In our opinion, minimising the impact of visual bulk is achieved through a combination of the location of a building on a site; the stepping of a building as it rises in height; the articulation including the materials and finishes of a building; and intermediary measures such as other building structures, fencing, trellising and landscaping (existing and proposed).
This is a large, tall building and it needs to be in order to accommodate the early learning centre, music and art classrooms and a 300 seat auditorium and associated spaces. The cantilevered upper two levels of the building at the rear of the site is a prominent element[19] that is at odds with the low scale back gardens of the surrounding properties. There was some suggestion during the hearing that the proposed building merely builds upon the shape and height of the existing building to be demolished. However, we are of the view, the proposed building is significantly larger with big elements that are necessary to accommodate the auditorium, early learning centre, art and music rehearsal rooms. We find the visual bulk impact of the proposed building is therefore significant. In our opinion, the proximity of the building to the neighbours' boundaries necessitates a minimisation of the visual bulk. The opportunities to minimise the visual bulk through stepping, articulation and intermediary measures have not been sufficiently addressed. We also have amenity concerns with the design of this building which we will explain later. In our opinion, the design of a new school building on this site needs to start again having regard to its interfaces with, and amenity impacts upon, the surrounding residential properties.

[45]

Mr Smyth expressed concern about the existing use of a public announcement system, which he submitted is contrary to existing planning permit conditions that limit such usage to emergencies only. He tabled a letter from Heggies acoustic consultants during the hearing that measured the noise levels associated with the bell and public address system from Mr Smyth's back garden. Heggies recommended the school bell should be reduced in noise level. Mr Fearnside agreed, explaining the bell's tone would be aggravating, and he suggested the bell should be replaced with a broadband sound. Despite our decision to refuse this proposal, we suggest that this is a matter that should be addressed by the school regardless of this decision.
There was some discussion during the hearing about whether the public address system should be altered to an electronic system, as is being used at the senior school campus. We appreciate that an electronic system may be problematic given the size of Magid Campus and its inclusion of sports fields and play areas. However, our inspection of the senior school campus revealed an electronic system can work in a smaller, confined space. As such, an electronic system may be suitable if a public address system is required at 520 Orrong Road. We note Mr Fearnside suggested the Magid campus public address system should follow EPA guidelines for public address systems (October 2008). Again, we suggest this is a matter that should be reviewed by the school regardless of this decision.
In regard to noise escaping from the openable windows of the proposed building at 517 Orrong Road, we adopt the evidence of Mr Fearnside that there will be no change to this noise.
There was a general concern expressed about the noise associated with children in a school that is almost doubling in size. Whilst we agree there would be an increase in noise, we were not presented with any evidence to suggest that such noise is unreasonable. Therefore, this is not a reason why we have refused this proposal.

[47]

Mrs Cato, Mr McLean and Mr Pahlow expressed concern about the noise impact associated with the early learning centre's outdoor play area, which will be adjacent to their rear boundaries. As a result, Mr Fearnside was engaged between the September and December hearing days to review the acoustics of this outdoor play area. Mr Fearnside gave evidence based on the noise of 50 children aged between 3 and 6 years using this area at any one time. He advised he had not considered the noise associated with 100 children the difference in noise level may be a 1dB increase, which would not be discernible.
Mrs Cato questioned the adequacy of the proposed acoustic fencing, particularly as it is only proposed along her rear boundary and not her side boundary that is also adjacent to the school. Mr Fearnside recommended that an acoustic fence be installed around the entire perimeter of the outdoor play area, which would provide suitable buffering to Mr and Mrs Cato's property and not necessitate any further acoustic fencing along their side boundary. His understanding is the area adjacent to Mr and Mrs Cato's side boundary would be a service area only.
Mr Fearnside acknowledges the noise of children playing will be audible in the back gardens of the nearest residential properties and in their homes with the windows open. He recommends a 2 metre high acoustic fence be constructed with no installation of climbing frames or other equipment that elevates children about the fence height. Subject to this, he states the overall noise impact is not sufficient. We are cognisant of many other decisions by this Tribunal that have found the noise of children playing is not offensive. The key issue is ensuring an acceptable noise level, which in this case necessitates the construction of acoustic fencing[21]. In our opinion, this necessity is a symptom of the impacts associated with this proposed building. If this was the only issue, it may not have being sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposal. But, in combination with other issues (those already outlined and those discussed in the remainder of this section of our decision), we find the building and its activities are being pushed into the rear of the site, which has the most sensitive interfaces. We are of the opinion the proposed building and the location of many of the facilities within it are a poor design outcome.
The design incorporates openable double doors from two early learning centre classrooms on the north side of the building. Mr Fearnside did not consider this side of the building to be a play area (adjacent to the southern boundary of Dr Marks' property), but stated if it is to be used as a play area then it should have acoustic fencing as well. Mr Pitt advised this side will not be a play area but "may be accessible to children to pick up a leaf". In our opinion, if it is intended that this side will be available for children to access, then acoustic fencing should be provided. This is a matter that should be considered as part of any future design for an early learning centre on this site.

[49]

Mr Fearnside gave evidence that a series of specific building design measures will be required to provide suitable sound insulation, including a sound absorptive blanket in the wall cavity; solid timber core doors with acoustic seals; and particular roof materials. In addition, Mr Fearnside recommended music not be played beyond 11.00pm[22]. We are satisfied such matters could be addressed through appropriate permit conditions if we were of a mind to grant a permit.
The music practice rooms are located on the first floor, predominantly in the cantilevered section of the building at the rear of the site. Mr Fearnside recommended all windows on this level should be unopenable and of thick laminated glass to prevent excessive noise emissions. He also recommended the rear orchestra and band rehearsal room and the ensemble rehearsal room have double glazed windows with an additional internal glass pane located 150mm from the external pane (on the presumption they will be used primarily during school hours only).
This aspect of the proposal is of concern to us for two reasons. Firstly, the necessary acoustic treatment to prevent excessive noise is yet another symptom of the impacts associated with the proposed building. Mr Fearnside stated it is extremely difficult to gauge the impact of noise from a combination of some music and children playing from inside Mr McLean's house, but acknowledged seeing noise sources can make them more annoying when they are audible. The rear first floor orchestra and band rehearsal room sits behind a very large glass box in the rear façade. There are no proposed limitations on the use of this room, which means it could be used for rehearsals during the evening and on weekends as well as during school days. The issue of internal lighting of the rear façade at night with visibility of the activities occurring is a matter that should be considered as part of any future planning application. We find this activity within the building is inappropriately located close to the rear of the site, which has the most sensitive interfaces. Again, we are of the opinion the proposed building is a poor design outcome.

[50]

Mr O'Farrell stated the proposal seeks to expand the student numbers from 350 to 634 and increase the staff numbers from 46 to 72, which equates to an increase of 310 people[23]. The proposal also includes a new 300 seat auditorium on the Minimbah campus. This increase in school population and school activities is of concern to the Council and the residents. Mr Hunter submitted the students from the senior school currently use 520 Orrong Road and it is clear from the proposed plans for the new building on this site that senior students will continue to visit this property. Ms Bernshaw confirmed that the proposed facilities at the Minimbah campus will be used by all students to varying extents. Mr Avery submitted the residents do not want to see the school (generally) used after school hours or on weekends unless it can be strictly controlled by permit conditions. Mr Hunter pointed out Ms Bernshaw's evidence report outlines 66 events and open days associated with school activities. He stated this means 79-80 times per year the school will be used outside of school hours in addition to the 37-38 weeks of school terms, equating to an average of at least two times per week when out of school activities will occur.
The school use and its activities have the potential to impact upon the amenity of the surrounding area. The Council and the residents both submitted a number of the criteria in the Institutional Uses local planning policy have not been satisfied particularly in regard to:
- The extent of activities;
- The hours of operation;
- Visitor activities and staff shifts;
- The use and relationship between the senior school, Magid and Minimbah campuses;
- The lack of projection of future staff and student numbers; and
- Any anticipated future activities.
This policy applies to either a planning application or a master plan. It was brought to our attention by various parties that master plans have been prepared in the past for this school but had not progressed to become a planning scheme amendment (which would ultimately result in the inclusion of the master plan in the Planning Scheme). There was some criticism that the school should prepare a master plan but we are not persuaded this is a necessity. The policy applies equally to a planning application or a master plan. As such, this means this planning application needs to be assessed under the policy's criteria, and issues about the overall operation of the school, as proposed and into the future, are relevant considerations.
During the hearing, many small details were revealed including (but not limited to) the school's aspirations to possibly increase the student numbers in the future by approximately another 125 students[24]; the school accommodating Sabbath services at the Kooyong Road campus; out of hours care being provided for prep to year 4; the auditorium having moveable seating; and the senior school use of the auditorium and art/music classrooms. It may be that not all of the policy criteria has been specifically addressed, but the policy makes it clear the criteria should be provided "as appropriate". This requires a judgment to be made as to whether what is provided is appropriate. We find the level of information provided to us during the course of the hearing is sufficient and appropriate in light of the policy criteria to enable us to understand the future use and development needs of this school. Mr Hunter expressed concern there may be additional, incremental planning applications to increase the student numbers and stated this is not fair on the residents. The fact is planning applications can be made by anyone at any time and each must be assessed on its merits. That is what we have done in considering this proposal, and any subsequent proposal will also need to be assessed on its merits.
The original permit application for this proposal sought public use of the auditorium, but this element was removed as part of the circulation of the amended plans in the lead up to this hearing. Mr McGauran expressed the view the broader community can benefit from being able to utilise school facilities and it is regrettable the use of the auditorium is constrained to school use only. The fact is the proposal now seeks school use only, and that is all we are considering.

[53]

Mr O'Farrell referred to the planning permits already issued for both campuses, particularly the fact that there was no specific permission in the description of any of the permits for a dispensation or reduction in the car parking requirements for a primary school. He submitted this means the existing staff numbers of the primary school equate to the number of car spaces that should be provided on the site (i.e. 46 car spaces). We think this is a fairly simplistic argument as it is commonplace for the description of what a permit allows to be a description of the proposal but not necessarily a description of all of the planning permissions granted. It is the combination of the permit conditions and the endorsed plans that need to be reviewed to ascertain exactly what has been approved. During the September hearing days, Mr Pitt acknowledged the current planning permits did show an on-site car parking area at the western end of the Magid Campus, with access to Stawell Street[27]. This area did not actually exist on-site, but Mr Pitt advised the car spaces would be provided before the next school term commenced in October, and they duly have been.
On the basis that the car parking shown on the endorsed plans are now provided on the Magid campus, the issue becomes what level of car parking is required for this proposal, including the proposed increase in student and staff numbers. We agree with Mr Pitt's submission no planning permission is required under cl. 52.06 of the Planning Scheme as the provision of car parking for the primary school exceeds the specified car parking requirement[28]. There is no specific car parking requirement for an early learning centre, which means an adequate number of car spaces must be provided[29].
Mr Walsh described the proposal as incorporating 95-97 car spaces, being 80 spaces in the basement, 15 spaces at the rear of the Magid campus, and the potential for a further 2 on-site car spaces if there is no bus parking provided at the rear of the Magid campus. Mr Walsh projects the total parking demand for 74 equivalent full time staff will be 67 spaces, which will be accommodated via the 17 spaces at the rear of the Magid campus and 50 of the spaces within the basement, being the lower level and the half level in the basement. Consequently, Mr Walsh advised 30 car spaces will be available in the basement for the early learning centre (ELC) parents, which is a rate of 0.3 of a car space per student. Overall, he gave evidence the basement will result in a net decrease in the demand for on-street parking of 17 car spaces in the morning and one car space in the afternoon.

[54]

Ms Bernshaw and Mr Walsh gave evidence the intention is to split the 100 ELC students into two year levels with start and finish times that are separated by 20 minutes. The current 100 students at the Kooyong Road campus comprise 88 families and Mr Walsh assumed the number of families are evenly distributed, so each year level would have 44 families. He also assumed two thirds of the families (29) would arrive within the peak 15 minute period and the average stay would be in the order of 8 to 10 minutes. Based on these assumptions, Mr Walsh has determined that there will be a peak period parking demand for 19 car spaces, leaving 11 car spaces that could accommodate the other ELC year level should those families arrive outside of the peak period.
Mr Walsh explained the duration of stay of 10 minutes was for the ELC alone and did not take into account if a family had another sibling in the Magid campus that would also need to be dropped off. The surveys undertaken by Mr Walsh suggest approximately 20% of the ELC students may have a sibling at the school, but Mr Walsh indicated he had not undertaken a duration of stay survey of the existing ELC parents. He was surprised by a survey tabled by Mr Hunter that showed a longer duration of stay at the Kooyong Road (Southwick) campus; but acknowledged if a parent was dropping students off at both the ELC and either prep, years 1 or 2 at the Magid campus, their duration of stay is likely to be longer than 10 minutes. However, Mr Walsh stated there is adequate additional car parking (11 car spaces) available if the duration of stay is longer. This assumes the available car parking will only be used by the 44 families (and 29 families in the peak 15 minutes) associated with one year level of the ELC at a time, with no overlap. Whilst the two ELC year levels have been separated by 20 minutes, Ms Bernshaw advised the duration of the ELC program for both year levels remains the same, being a 9.00am start and a 3.00pm finish. Therefore, we find it is possible parents will drop off ELC students closer to the program times and may well overlap; and if there are siblings, parents of both ELC year levels may arrive closer to the start of the school day and may well overlap.
In general terms, we are of the opinion this school should be congratulated on its efforts to provide some new off-street parking. Mrs Partenio questioned the appropriateness of requiring ELC parents to drive into the basement and park to drop off and pick up young children. Whilst basement car parking may not be a common feature at schools, it is an efficient use of land and parents will become used to such parking arrangements with time. In our opinion, the proximity of the car parking to the ELC will encourage its use. Our concerns are the adequacy of the car parking during peak periods given the ELC program time, the possible overlap of parents from the two ELC year levels and if parents are also intending to walk siblings or other children across Orrong Road to the Magid campus at the same time. We suggest the adequacy of, and arrangements for, the ELC car parking during the peak periods should be reviewed as part of any future planning application.

[55]

There is no additional parking proposed to cater for any parking associated with the drop off and pick up of the prep, year 1 and 2 students that will be relocated from the Kooyong Road (Southwick) campus to the Magid campus. Whilst we agree with Mr Pitt there is no planning permission required for parking associated with the primary school, planning permission is required to increase the student numbers (given this is currently controlled by existing permits). The Institutional Uses policy contains an objective to ensure future use and development needs of institutions take place in an orderly manner and it states regard be given to:
- Proposed circulation and access systems for both vehicles and pedestrians.
- Proposed means of dealing with identified traffic and parking issues.
- Parking provision, including overflow areas and the use of any public land for parking (where applicable).
- Loading areas.
Ms Bernshaw advised years 3 to 8 start at 8:45am and finish at 3:40pm and the prep to year 2 students will start at 8:40am and conclude at 3:30pm. In other words, the drop off and pick up peak periods will be generally the same for all year levels - prep to year 8. The first two matters listed in the above dot points are particularly relevant when considering the impact of the increase in student numbers upon the surrounding residential streets.
The survey of the Kooyong Road campus tabled by Mr Hunter did show a significantly longer duration of stay than was anticipated by Mr Walsh for the ELC[30]. We inspected the drop off AM peak period at the Kooyong Road campus and saw a generally longer duration of stay than we saw with the years 3 to 8 at the Magid campus. The longer the duration of stay, the greater the demand is for on-street car parking. There were some short stay (5 minute) car spaces immediately outside the front of the Kooyong Road campus. We observed they were well utilised with a reasonable turnover despite the average stay being longer than the time permitted. Also, parents were parking along both sides of Kooyong Road for some length as well as in Glassford Street and Horsburgh Grove.
Mr Walsh advised the primary point for picking up and dropping off students at the Magid campus is, and will be, the on-site circular driveway accessed via Stawell Street and Karbarook Avenue. At the time of the September hearing days, this drop off facility catered to vehicles moving in either direction along Karbarook Avenue. However, prior to the December hearing days, the school instigated a left-in and left-out traffic arrangement requiring vehicles to enter via Stawell Street and exit via Karbarook Avenue. Mrs Partenio questioned the adequacy of the drop off facility in her evidence, which was before the changes were made. We questioned Mr Walsh as to whether the changes had had an impact upon the use of the drop off facility, as it appeared from our inspections the facility may not be as well utilised. Mr Walsh advised surveys were undertaken just prior to the December hearing days, which found 45 vehicles used the drop off facility in the AM peak period and 25-26 vehicles used the drop off facility during the PM peak period. He stated the lesser number of vehicles in the afternoon was due to the average duration of stay being longer, i.e. parents were parking in the drop off facility to wait for children when picking them up. In doing so, it is possible for vehicles to become parked in and this was an occurrence we witnessed during one of our inspections. Mr Walsh had not undertaken any surveys prior to the changes being put in place, but suggested the left-in/left-out arrangement has not had a noticeable difference.
Mr Hunter submitted the location of the school student population is largely (more than 80%) based to the south of the school and referred to maps in the school's 2003 and 2005 master plans to substantiate his submission. We were provided with a copy of the October 2005 draft master plan that includes a map showing the location of students by postcode. The majority of the students do come from south of Dandenong Road, but it is unclear from the map whether the number of students is 80%. However, the fact remains the majority of the students are based to the south of Dandenong Road and Mr Walsh has not considered the likely car routes to be used to drop off and pick up students in the morning and the afternoon peak periods. We are of the opinion this may influence the desirability to use the drop off facility in Karbarook Avenue. This is a matter that should be reviewed by the school.
Based on Mr Walsh's figures, the use of the drop off facility is quite low in our opinion. It must be remembered the Magid campus currently accommodates years 3 to 8, who are students that are more independent and capable of making their own way to and from the school (regardless of where they are dropped off and picked up). What this proposal is seeking to do is to introduce more students, and particularly three new year levels (prep to year 2), being younger students that are often walked into the school by their parent(s). This was evident during our inspection of the Kooyong Road campus. However, this proposal does not include the opportunity for any additional on-site car parking or drop off facility to accommodate these parents, and this concerns us.
The fact that only 25-26 vehicles used the drop off facility in Karbarook Avenue during the PM peak period because parents were parking and waiting for students does not persuade us this facility is adequate to cater for the additional students, particularly the younger students in prep to year 2. Mr Walsh stated it is possible for the facility to be modified to allow six vehicles to park on the left hand side and maintain an opportunity for other cars to pass and exit. However, based on our observations of the demands for parking in the AM peak period at the Kooyong Road campus, we are not persuaded modifying the drop off facility will result in any significant improvement. It leads us to question what other car parking opportunities there are around the school for dropping off and picking up students?

[56]

There is very limited car parking available along both sides of Orrong Road due to the pedestrian traffic lights and clearways during peak hours. The proposed circular driveway off Orrong Road on the Minimbah campus is not being used because VicRoads has expressed concern about vehicles using it to avoid stopping at the pedestrian lights. In addition, no standing restrictions are required by VicRoads adjacent to the entry and exit from this circular driveway and the basement entry/exit. This means parking along Orrong Road will be further restricted and parent parking will occur during the peak periods in the surrounding residential streets, including Karbarook Avenue, Stawell Street and Avalon Road[31].
We have inspected the streets surrounding the Magid and Minimbah campuses on several occasions during the AM and PM peak drop off/pick up periods. A number of cars were parked along the streets (other than where the 15 angled spaces are provided in Stawell Street, which was largely empty during all of our inspections). We saw examples of what we would kindly described as poor driver behaviour in the dropping off and picking up of children. Parents do choose to park in the surrounding streets, but they also choose to park or pull over and stop briefly (illegally or not) as close to the school's entries as they can to pick up or drop off their children.
We are of the view the opportunities for children to be dropped off and picked up around the school requires further consideration. It is regrettable that Orrong Road is largely unavailable for parking, but it is a fact and will not change. Mr Pitt submitted more car parking can be provided in the basement (as originally proposed in the permit application were 120 rather than 80 basement spaces), however he pointed out such spaces would be provided at a cost. The school also has frontages to Karbarook Avenue and Stawell Street and, whilst they are residential streets[32], we are of the opinion these frontages are underutilised and the school (and the Council and the residents) should consider opportunities to maximise their usage to provide suitable circulation and access systems for both vehicles and pedestrians as a means of dealing with the parking issues associated with bringing prep to year 2 students into the Magid campus. We are of the opinion a circulation system which is a better arrangement than the current system, needs to be considered.

[60]

There is strong policy support for schools to establish and grow amongst local communities, which includes residential neighbourhoods. The consolidation of this school's activities around Orrong and Dandenong Roads has benefits for the school and the broader community. However, there needs to be an appropriate balance struck between the size of the school and its impacts upon the surrounding community. We find this proposal has not achieved an appropriate balance.
In particular, the proposed building on the Minimbah campus and its facilities/activities in our view have unreasonable detrimental impacts upon the adjoining residential properties and requires redesign. This is the most significant issue requiring resolution in any new proposal for the combined Magid and Minimbah campus sites. However, it may be desirable for the school (in addressing this issue) to review its overall activities across both sites if it to maximise its aspirations to consolidate school buildings and activities within these two sites whilst respecting the adjacent residential community. It may be that a more fundamental rethink of which activities can best be located within each campus could lead to a more effective use of both. Equally, as we have indicated, there is planning policy support for schools to locate and grow in residential areas, and the local community must expect and accept some augmentation of the school's activities at these sites over time.
As we have also indicated, in achieving any future balance between the size of the school and its impacts upon the surrounding community, we find other matters should also be reviewed. These include the sunlight impact of the new building on Mr Mannix's house; the adequacy of the ELC parking during peak periods; the arrangements for parking, drop off and pick up of the prep to year 2 students; and a review of the circular drive off Orrong Road.
We hope our findings will be of assistance to the school, the residents and the Council in considering the merits of any future planning applications.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (89 paragraphs)

The King David School v Stonnington CC [2009] VCAT 558 (27 March 2009)

Parties