Because a use is in Section 2 does not imply that a permit should or will be granted. The responsible authority must decide whether the proposal will produce acceptable outcomes in terms of the Municipal Planning Strategy, the Planning Policy Framework, the purpose and decision guidelines of the zone and any of the other decision guidelines in Clause 65.

1. The zone provisions do not provide any useful guidance to assist in the assessment of the proposal. Both the purpose and the sole decision guideline require consideration of the MPS and PPF with no further reference to other matters. The other purpose, as mentioned above, is solely directed to the provision of low-density residential development in circumstances where, in the absence of reticulated sewerage, wastewater can be treated and retained on site. This is not relevant to the consideration of the proposal, given its non-residential nature. We note, however, that the subject land is serviced by reticulated sewerage.
2. Guidance must therefore be sought, and obtained from, the MPS and PPF, in addition to consideration of the decision guidelines at clause 65.
3. The applicant placed some emphasis on how the MPS and PPF address the provision of low-density residential development in the municipality. Specifically, it was submitted that the opportunity for such development is limited by the extent of land within the LDRZ and by the importance of protecting agricultural land from intrusion of, or loss to, housing. With respect to the latter, attention was drawn to clause 02.03-4 of the MPS, natural resource management, where it identifies a concern that 'productive agricultural land is being lost to non-agricultural uses, especially to rural living and low-density residential development'.
4. In addressing settlement, the MPS at clause 02.03-1 identifies the municipality has at least 15 years' supply of zoned residential land and an additional 15 years of 'future' or unzoned land stocks. It observes that new residential lots created in recent times have been in the form of small infill subdivisions and a shift toward larger subdivisions and increased urban densities is likely to be required to accommodate forecast population growth. A strategic direction is to discourage the rezoning or development of land for low-density development if the land is likely to be required for future urban development.
5. The applicant's submission is that the MPS makes it clear rezoning more land to LDRZ requires cautious consideration because it should not occur in areas where future development is required and it should not occur in productive agricultural areas. The applicant also referred to clause 02.03-6 where it addresses rural residential development and states that opportunities for rural residential development in the municipality are limited with the only areas specifically designed for rural living are around Castlemaine.
6. In essence, the applicant's position is that the subject land should be retained for low-density or rural residential purposes and the place of worship should be located in a zone and location that is a 'better fit' for the use. In this respect, the applicant observed that clause 19.02-4S has a strategy to encourage the location of social and cultural infrastructure in activity centres.
7. The parties referred to the Mount Alexander Shire Land Supply and Demand Assessment[5] ('MALSDA') which was adopted by council on 20 August 2024. According to that document:

Results of the supply and demand assessment for the Mount Alexander LGA indicate that there is more than 30 years of land supply based on forecast demand. Based on the combined forecast demand across the entire municipality, including rural forecast areas, the anticipated supply would take 33 years to consume. When the rural forecast areas are excluded, supply is anticipated to take 35 years to consume.

1. The MALSDA is a high-level analysis without providing any direction or conclusions regarding the demand for different types of dwellings and/or lot sizes. Nonetheless, it does indicate that there is no identified shortage of land to accommodate the municipality's growth for the foreseeable future. That said, it does not lend any particular weight to either the applicant's or permit applicant's case, given there is no specific analysis of the demand and supply for low-density residential lots. It does, however, indicate that the 'loss' of this land to a non-residential use is unlikely to compromise the ability to accommodate the municipality's forecast population growth.
2. The Castlemaine Land Use Framework Plan at clause 11.01-1L-02 shows the subject land as being within the town's urban boundary. The applicant observed that it is outside the central residential area shown on that plan and appears to be included as rural land. To the extent that the plan does not identify the subject land as a location for a non-residential use, this is not unusual given it is a framework plan of a broadly generalised nature and largely schematic. Although not clear if the land is shown as rural, this does not preclude it being developed and used as place of worship, as the zoning allows for such uses.
3. In part, the applicant's submissions placed some emphasis on the absence of any clear strategic or other direction in the Planning Scheme that non-residential uses are supported in this location. This is true, but it would also be unusual for it to do so, particularly at a policy level.
4. The strategy in clause 19.01-4S encourages community and social infrastructure to locate in activity centres. It does not explain the reason for this, but is likely to be so that advantage can be taken of existing transport, infrastructure and services, while potentially minimising impacts on established residential areas. The evidence, and the permit applicant's submissions were that there are inherent difficulties in assembling land parcels and providing sufficient space to accommodate the required car parking. Reference was made to the permit applicant's existing premises in the established area of the town, which is no longer of sufficient size to accommodate their needs.
5. While we acknowledge the strategy which encourages facilities such as places of worship to locate in activity centres, this is not a determinative consideration or one which, of itself, militates against the grant of a permit for the proposal. What must be decided is whether the proposal represents an acceptable outcome having regard to the physical and planning context of the subject land. We consider this in the following sections of these reasons.

1. The applicant's principal criticism of the built form was its non-residential nature rather than specifically the architecture, design, massing, materials and colours, for example. What is of concern to them is the non-residential form of the building in a residential zone. We were not taken to any specific elements of the building which could be identified as unacceptable having regard to the relevant Planning Scheme policies at clause 15.01 which address the built environment (urban design and built environment).
2. Broadly, these policies refer to development being of a design and siting that responds positively to its context. This includes considerations such as achieving an acceptable interface between the public and private realm; ensuring a high standard of design for publicly accessible private spaces, including car parks; providing landscaping; and minimising detrimental impacts on the natural and built environment.
3. As noted earlier, there is a mix of land uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject land. While there are examples of dwellings opposite and further to the north, the character of the locality is also influenced by the large utilitarian buildings on the adjoining land to the south and by the church building on the eastern side of Blakely Road. It is not a homogenous residential environment, and the existing built form clearly reflects this. In the context, the 8.2 metre overall height is not excessive and will not manifest as a dominant presence. It is representative of a two-storey scale.
4. The building's design is not seeking to reflect or emulate a domestic dwelling, similar to what exists on neighbouring lots. It is quite evidently of a different character and its form follows its intended function and use as a place of worship. Its profile, however, is not inconsistent with that of existing buildings in the neighbourhood.
5. That said, there are design elements that respond to the character of the locality, including the nearby residential development. These include the regular proportions, the pitched roof form and a materials palette which includes rammed earth, timber-look cladding, 'barestone' (fibre cement) cladding and colorbond roof sheeting. The colour scheme is restrained, and includes browns, greys and charcoal in muted tones which are sympathetic to the surrounding environment. It represents an acceptable response.
6. The siting, with a minimum 11.0 metre front setback, increasing to 18.2 metres allows sufficient opportunity for meaningful landscaping to be provided at the interface with the public realm. This includes canopy trees, as demonstrated in the landscape plan. As it appears in the streetscape, the building will be largely within a landscaped setting. The paved car park is situated to the rear of the building, reducing its visibility from Blakely Road, and will include some planting to soften its appearance. The overflow car park is smaller in its extent and will have a gravel surface with a softer appearance than hard pavement. In addition, it will have landscaping both within the parking area and around its edges to further soften the appearance.
7. As shown on the landscape plan, planting is proposed throughout the site, in particular along the waterway, to enhance the site's appearance and contribute positively to the character of the area.

1. With respect to noise impacts of the proposal, the applicant was mainly concerned about the potential noise impacts from the use of the proposed building, noise from patrons using the car park(s) and traffic noise from the additional vehicles using Blakeley Road and vehicles entering and exiting the car park(s) at various times of the day.
2. Enfield Acoustics Pty Ltd ('Enfield') prepared a Traffic Noise Impact Assessment report[6] that accompanied the planning permit application. That report concluded that:
   • There are no policy controls (legislation, statutory or local planning scheme) regarding noise impacts from passenger vehicles on commercial land or local roads.
   • It is reasonable to expect some traffic and transport noise in the area as the Midland Highway is to the west along with the Bendigo rail line.
   • Traffic counts measured near the development site in Blakeley Road show that the road carries approximately 550 to 580 vehicles a day for a weekday and approximately 325 to 350 vehicles a day for weekends.
   • The proposed usage times of the development is in less sensitive times (daytime and evening periods) and not at night-time. The earliest commencement time is 7.00am which is at the end of the night-time period (10.00pm to 7.00am). The night-time period is regarded as the most sensitive period as local residents are asleep; whereas the daytime and evening periods are regarded as less sensitive.
   • The proposed maximum number of attendees during the earliest use of the hall at 7.00am on a Sunday would be 50. This group is mostly family groups with predicted 15 cars being used.
   • Vehicle noise from the car park is modelled to be 23 dB(A) Lmax at the nearest residence and the modelled noise level from attendees using the carpark is 33 dB(A) Lmax at the nearest residence.
   • Vehicle noise on Blakeley Road is 43 dB(A) Lmax at the nearest residence. It is possible that vehicle noise from a passing vehicle could be audible inside a residence, however, this does not imply that the noise is unreasonable.
3. Enfield prepared further assessments which were included in the evidence to the Tribunal.[7] These included noise measurement of the existing noise environment at the subject land next to Blakeley Road. The Lmax noise levels (measured over a one second interval) are shown below for the period from 5 February 2025 to 13 February 2025.
4. The light green shaded area to the left of the diagram below is the period 7.00am to 10.00pm on the 6 February 2025. The remaining shaded areas are 7.00am to 10.00pm on the following consecutive days. The transient noise events occurring in the 7.00am to 10.00pm period range between 60 dB(A) to 80 dB(A).

1. The existing transient events show that the residents along Blakeley Road are already exposed to noise levels from vehicles using Blakeley Road that are higher than the modelled vehicle noise (43 dB(A) Lmax). The measurements also show that the transient noise levels between 6.00am and 7.00am range between 50 dB(A) to 60 dB(A) Lmax.
2. The evidence concluded that:

....even if vehicles did arrive prior to the permitted start time under condition 20(c) on the Notice of Decision (NOD), it would not be out of character with the existing soundscape of the area.

1. The evidence concluded:
   • At a qualitative level, the restricted hours of use and site context indicate that material noise impacts are very unlikely to occur. Quantitative noise modelling and a monitoring survey carried out on the site supports that opinion.
2. The evidence recommended the inclusion of reference to compliance with the requirements of the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (Vic) ('EP Regulations') as assessed by Environment Protection Authority Publication 1826.4, May 2021, Noise limit and assessment protocol for the control of noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises and entertainment venues. A permit condition has been included.
3. We accept the evidence that the proposed traffic noise impacts are not peculiar to the residences near Blakeley Road and that the additional traffic movement as a result of the development will not add unacceptably to the already low traffic impacts in the area on the days that there are low permitted attendance numbers.
4. When there are potentially up to 466 attendees (and 140 cars), the number of vehicle movements on Blakeley Road will increase, however the noise level of the vehicles should remain similar to the noise levels for days with lesser attendees. The extent of the period for vehicles arriving and departing the site will be lengthened and could result in a perceived negative impact but the noise will be in the range modelled in the evidence and will therefore not be unacceptable.
5. The EP Regulations do not regulate the noise of voices associated with the arrival and departure of patrons. A condition of permit, however, will require that the use does not detrimentally affect the amenity of the area by way of any noise, and provides a mechanism to ensure that an unacceptable impact does not arise.

IS THE PROPOSED TREATMENT OF THE WATERWAY ACCEPTABLE?

1. As detailed earlier, a watercourse with an east-west alignment bisects the eastern portion of the subject land. The plan shows the proposed re-alignment of the watercourse's northern alignment.
2. As observed during our site inspection, and consistent with the evidence, the watercourse is currently in a degraded condition, weed-infested and lacking any canopy cover. It is proposed to re-align the watercourse, undertake re-vegetation and stabilise the channel. According to the evidence, the re-alignment involves widening the channel to promote stability and facilitate the rehabilitation.
3. The benefits of these works, as detailed in the evidence, may be summarised as:
   • provision of tree canopy and groundcover as detailed on the landscape plan
   • reduction in the risk of erosion through landscaping and maintenance
   • re-profiling of the watercourse to ensure the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) peak flow can be conveyed across the site
   • provision of a minimum 40 metre wide watercourse corridor.
4. We agree with the submissions, and accept the evidence, that this represents a beneficial outcome and is consistent with policy at clause 12.03-1S which has the objective to protect and enhance waterway systems including river and riparian corridors, waterways, lakes, wetlands and billabongs.
5. The planning permit application was referred to the North Central Catchment Management Authority ('NCCMA'), Goulburn Murray Water ('GMW') and Coliban Water as a consequence of the subject land's location in a Special Water Supply Catchment Area. All these authorities responded by advising they have no objection to the grant of a permit, subject to conditions.
6. The NCCMA response included the following condition:
   1. The Place of Worship and the overflow carpark [sic] must be setback [sic] a minimum of 20 metres from the top of bank of the watercourse that traverses the property.
7. Similarly, the response from GMW included the following condition:
   1. No buildings are to be constructed within 20 metres of any waterways (including dams on waterways) or on any drainage lines.
8. Subsequent correspondence from NCCMA[8] stated:

North Central CMA advises that in drafting condition no. 2, it was intended that the 20m waterway setback related to the overflow car park and the place of worship building only.

North Central CMA is satisfied with the setback of the main carpark [sic] from the dam edge, and is not seeking any alterations to the referred application plans.

1. The evidence confirms that the development complies with these conditions.
2. As noted at the hearing, a curvilinear alignment is shown for the waterway, which differs from the 'straight' alignment depicted on the application plans. It was clarified that this is a somewhat schematic representation and the final future alignment would be determined after detailed analysis and input from a variety of experts, including drainage/hydrological engineers and landscape architects. Irrespective of the form of the alignment, the minimum 20 metre setback specified by NCCMA and GMW will need to be met. This can be addressed by permit conditions.

WILL THE PROPOSAL RESULT IN UNACCEPTABLE TRAFFIC IMPACTS?

1. The proposed car parking provision complies with the requirement at clause 52.06-5 in relation to the maximum attendance of 466 patrons at any one time. Permission is not required, as is not being sought, to reduce the car parking requirement.
2. A significant concern for the applicant, and for the respondents in proceeding P687/2024, is the traffic which will be generated by the proposal. This includes the number of vehicles, the routes to be used to access the subject land, and safety considerations. A particular concern relates to the intersection of the Midland Highway and Sawmill Road.
3. HTfV is a determining referral authority.[9] Accordingly, the planning permit application was referred to HTfV pursuant to section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic). In its initial response, HTfV stated it had no objection to the grant of a permit subject to specified conditions. These conditions are provided at Appendix B. In summary, these conditions required:
   • linemarking at the intersection of Myring Street and the Midland Highway to extend the capacity of the right-turn lane
   • at the Midland Highway/Sawmill Road intersection, a sealed left-turn lane treatment for the southbound left turn into Sawmill Road with full depth sealed shoulder
   • relocation and reinstatement of the existing guard rail on the Midland Highway to accommodate the left turn treatment
   • a Traffic Management Plan which must include traffic management measures for larger events
   • a Patron Management Plan which must include mitigation measures and strategies to reduce the number of northbound vehicles travelling to the site via the Sawmill Road and the Midland Highway intersection, particularly during peak arrival periods.
4. Proceeding P687/2024 is an application for a review of these conditions.
5. Prior to the hearing, the permit applicant provided an updated traffic assessment to HTfV. Having reviewed the traffic data contained in that assessment, HTfV provided the following response:

It is the Head, Transport for Victoria's view that the avoidance and discouragement of the Sawmill Road intersection would result in the optimal safety outcome. It is accepted that additional signage, directional information and the proposed Traffic Management Plan would better encourage drivers to avoid the intersection than a dedicated turn lane.

No amendments to the right-turn lane into Myring are required.

The information provides traffic data collected on the 16th and 17th of November, 2024. This data is more accurate and reflective of the intersection volumes compared to the data collected in 2021 during the pandemic for the TIAR. The traffic counts indicate a low level of traffic generally present at both the Myring /Midland and Sawmill/Midland intersections.

1. On this basis, HTfV revised its position and no longer requires the conditions specified in response to the referral of the planning permit application. Instead, HTfV requires the following condition to be included in any permit that issues for the proposal:

46. Traffic Management Plan

Prior to the commencement of the use, a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Head, Transport for Victoria. The TMP must include:

(a) The different scales of events to occur on site and the hours of event operation, in accordance with this permit including conditions relating to hours of operation (condition 20) and patron numbers (condition 22);

(b) For all services, including any larger services of more than 150 persons, mitigation measures and strategies to discourage congregants travelling to and from the site via the Sawmill Road & Midland Highway intersection;

(c) Provision of local traffic route information to congregants indicating the preferred designated route for travel to and from the site;

(d) Installation of advance directional road signage to direct traffic on the Midland Highway to turn at Myring Street;

(e) Installation of signage at the site to direct exiting traffic to head south on Blakeley Road;

(f) Any other temporary road treatments or staff directed to traffic controlling activities.

(g) Details of how the traffic management information will be shared with the attending congregation;

(g) Details of proposed implementation and monitoring measures to ensure effective on-going implementation of the Plan;

(h) Contact details of a traffic and parking coordinator as a liaison with Council and DTP if necessary;

(i) Any other relevant matter.

1. The applicant's submissions and those of the respondents in proceeding P687/2024, expressed concerns relating to the safety of the Midland Highway/Sawmill Road intersection. These concerns include the narrow width of the bridge which is over the railway line; the 'tight' radius of the bend of Sawmill Road at the bridge; and the restricted sightlines southward for vehicles turning right out of Sawmill Road to proceed north along the Midland Highway. Submissions also expressed concerns regarding the impact of traffic, particularly that associated with the larger gatherings, on the local road network.
2. Council did not raise any concerns regarding traffic-related considerations and supports the revised HTfV condition.
3. The evidence provides a description of the surrounding road network, which we summarise as follows:
   • Blakely Road is a Collector Road and is also within a Transport Zone 3. It has a 6.6 metre wide sealed carriageway in the vicinity of the subject land and accommodates a single lane of traffic in each direction. Adjacent to the site and extending further to the north the speed limit is 70 km/h, while some 50 metres to the south, the speed limit reduces to 50 km/h. Tube counts at the frontage of the subject land recorded a 24 hour weekday average of 559 vehicles with an 85th percentile speed of 58.4 km/h.
   • Sawmill Road is classified as a Minor Road with a 6.0 metre wide sealed carriageway allowing for a single lane of traffic in each direction. A default 50 km/h speed limit applies. At the bend, on top of the railway bridge, the radius is 'relatively tight' with sightlines assisted by a mirror. From the bridge to the Midland Highway, the carriageway narrows to 5.0 metres allowing for low-speed, two-way traffic. Tube counts recorded 24 hour weekday average of 353 vehicles, with an 85th percentile speed of 48 km/h.
   • Myring Street is a local road which has a traffic lane and parking lane in each direction. For the greater part, a 60 km/h speed limit applies, which reduced to 40 km/h at its transition to Blakely Road.
   • the Midland Highway is an arterial road and is in a Transport Zone 2. It has a speed limit of 80km/h near the intersection with Sawmill Road, which reduces to 60km/h at the intersection with Myring Street. Tube counts recorded a 24 hour weekday average of 11,062 vehicles north of Sawmill Road, with an 85th percentile speed of 85.1 km/h.
4. The evidence addresses sight distances at the entry/exit to the proposed car parking areas and at the Midland Highway/Sawmill Road intersection.
5. According to the evidence, the recommended sight distance criteria are detailed in the Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised intersections. The term 'Safe Intersection Sight Distance' ('SISD') is defined as:

SISD provides sufficient distance for a driver of a vehicle on the major road to observe a vehicle on a minor road approach moving into a collision situation and to decelerate to a stop before reaching the collision point. It allows for a 3 second observation time for a driver on the through leg of the intersection to detect the problem ahead, in addition to the ASD.[10]

1. At the entry/exit points of the car parks, the SISD for a speed zone of 70 km/h is 151 metres; for 50 km/h it is 97 metres. For the main car park, the sight distance to the north is approximately 300 metres and is acceptable. Sight distance to the south is limited by vegetation which the evidence recommends be trimmed to improve sightlines. With this, or when the vegetation is not in leaf, the sight distance to the south is approximately 145 metres. While there is a power pole to the south, the evidence is that it only partially obscures a driver's view and the driver can stop in a position where the pole does not obscure views of the road to the south. Our observations during the site inspection are consistent with the evidence in this respect.
2. Although the SISD of 151 metres to the south is not met (with a shortfall of 6 metres), the evidence is that as the speed increases from 50 km/h some 50 metres to the south, the 97 metre SISD applies in that section of Blakely Road. As the tube counts found that the 85th percentile speed of vehicles passing the subject land was 58.9 km/h, and therefore 'well under' the speed limit, the evidence is that the sightlines are acceptable subject to the tree pruning. A condition requiring that this pruning be undertaken, and then maintained, has been included.
3. For the overflow car park, the evidence is that the sight distance to the north is approximately 250 metres; to the south it is approximately 155 metres. These sight distances meet the SISD and are acceptable.
4. In respect of the Midland Highway/Sawmill Road intersection, the evidence states that the SISD is 170 metres for a speed limit of 80 km/h based on a reaction time of 1.5 seconds. For a reaction time of 2.0 seconds, the SISD is 180 metres. The sight distance to the north is 300 metres and is acceptable. To the south, the evidence notes that sight distance is constrained by the curvature of the Midland Highway where it passes through the adjacent cutting. At this location, the available sight distance is 150 metres. The SISD criteria is not obtained.
5. In constrained circumstances, such as where there are tighter horizontal or vertical road alignments, the evidence is that the minimum sight distances should comply with SISD using the values given under the extended design domain ('EDD') criteria for intersections. The evidence states that through research and/or operating experience, road agencies have found the EDD values provide a suitable solution in constrained situations. According to the evidence, based on the intersection here, the observation time in the case of SISD under the EDD can be reduced to 2.0 seconds. What this means is, for vehicles exiting Sawmill Road, the sight distance would be 144 metres. This is met for views both north and south of the Sawmill Road exit.
6. The evidence is that the left and right turning lanes are not required at the Midland Highway/Sawmill Road intersection for the following reasons:
   • the traffic impacts of the proposal are limited, occurring only at the beginning and end of services (with the regular weekly services not generating a substantial amount of traffic and the larger services being of a lesser frequency)
   • the SIDRA analysis indicates that the intersection will operate at a satisfactory level, with minimal delay in either the left or right turn
   • the Austroads guidelines addressing turn warrants are intended for new intersections in greenfield locations and not established areas that are highly constrained. The guidelines are not of assistance; the traffic expected to be generated is relatively low and infrequent
   • there are no turning lanes provided to other roads in the vicinity of the site from the Midland Highway and requiring turning lanes would be inconsistent with the existing nearby road network profile
   • there are significant practical constraints with providing turning lanes at this intersection.
7. In respect to the 'significant practical constraints' in providing the turning lanes the evidence states:

There are several challenges with providing turn lanes on Midland Highway associated with the existing topography of the area

To the immediate north of the Midland Highway and Sawmill Road intersection, the Midland Road carriageway is significantly raised above the verge on both sides (and includes guardrails that protect drivers from this drop off). This area is also highly dense with vegetation and would require significant removal of large trees to accommodate the widened carriageway.

Accordingly, it would be difficult to widen the Midland Road carriageway on this leg to provide a left turn lane to Sawmill Road without undertaking major excavation and earthworks.

The Midland Highway carriageway is similarly constrained to the south of the Sawmill Road intersection. The carriageway is effectively cut into a hill in this section, with high mounds of earth on each side. While DTP has not requested this, it would not be possible to widen the carriageway to provide a right turn lane into Sawmill Road without cutting further into these embankments. There would be impacts to this embankment, the service road on top of the embankment and the large trees in this area.

Widening on the south side of the road would face similar difficulties, with Sawmill Road impacted, significant vegetation and what appears to be brickwork associated with the rail bridge.

1. The evidence also addressed the revised HTfV condition, which only requires a Traffic Management Plan ('TMP'). It identifies that what is sought by the condition is that the majority of traffic accesses the subject land using the Midland Highway and Myring Street. The evidence includes an analysis of a scenario where all traffic arrives and departs using this intersection.
2. That analysis found for the arrival peak, there would be negligible change in the intersection performance. It found that the left turn from the Midland Highway into Myring Street results in no change to the average delay for through traffic; and for the right turn, it operates at an 'excellent' level of service, with the 95th percentile queue increasing from 0.4 metre to 1.3 metres. The existing right turn lane does not require modification to accommodate the increase in demand.
3. For the departure peak, the analysis concluded that there is negligible change in intersection performance pre and post-development. The right turn out of Myring Street will continue to operate at an 'excellent' level of service, and only a minor (+0.6 second) delay will be experienced. The left turn out of Myring Street will also continue to perform under 'excellent' conditions.
4. The evidence concludes that the intersection of the Midland Highway and Myring Street will perform well in both peaks because the Midland Highway operates 'well below' its capacity and carries a low traffic volume. According to the evidence, an upgraded left-turn lane is not required as the level of traffic expected to be generated by the proposal is low and infrequent. Accordingly, the left-turn lane would not carry significant traffic every day, for many hours per day.
5. Notably the evidence concludes that the agreement with HTfV to change the travel patterns of patrons accessing the place of worship via Myring Street rather than Sawmill Road is acceptable, with this being able to be accommodated by Myring Street and its intersection with the Midland Highway and no specific upgrades are required. The evidence also concludes that the use of Sawmill Road is also acceptable, as acceptable sight distances are provided and upgrading for the occasional use by the place of worship is not warranted.
6. Having undertaken a site inspection which included using the intersections of both the Midland Highway/Sawmill Road and the Midland Highway/ Myring Street, and having considered the submissions and the evidence, we formed a view that we would be assisted in our consideration of the traffic issues, by the production of a draft TMP responding to the HTfV condition. By order dated 20 March 2025 we required a draft TMP to prepared by the permit applicant in consultation with HTfV and provided to the Tribunal and all parties. The order provided the opportunity for submissions addressing the draft TMP to be made and also allowed for responding submissions.
7. In compliance with the order, a draft TMP was provided by the permit applicant. Key elements of the TMP include:
   • all patrons are members of the church congregation and not casual visitors. Direct communication about the TMP is readily achieved
   • the TMP will be disseminated using a variety of means including group messaging platforms, provision of hard copies, display of map/s and in-person announcements during gatherings
   • a Traffic and Parking Co-ordinator will be responsible for the implementation, communication and monitoring of the TMP. Responsibilities include educating the congregation about the TMP, monitoring the car park and the arrival/departure of patrons, liaising with council and HTfV as required, being a point of contact for any complaints, and reviewing and updating the TMP
   • use of directional signs, including:
     • permanent signs at the intersections of the Midland Highway/ Myring Street and the Midland Highway/Sawmill Road directing patrons to access the site using Myring Street
     • permanent signs on the subject land at the car park exits directing patrons to exit south along Blakely Road
   • for the larger events, where patrons will be attending from Kyneton, Bendigo and Castlemaine, the following additional traffic management measures will be implemented:

Church organisers will be stationed at entrance points for the main and overflow carpark [sic] to direct patrons entering and exiting the site for all large community events. These members can also identify people travelling to/from the north (towards Sawmill Road) and remind them of the need to comply with the TMP (except in the rare case that a patron lives directly north of the site).

• the TMP will be reviewed in the first three months of operation, and then annually. The Traffic and Parking Coordinator will be responsible for monitoring compliance with the TMP and determining whether additional measures need to be implemented.

1. Submissions addressing the TMP were received from council, HTfV, the applicant and from Ms Swanton.[11]
2. Council and HTfV raised no objection to the TMP.
3. Ms Swanton's submissions stated that, as the TMP directs patrons to access the subject land via Myring Road, residents of that road should be advised of the TMP and be given the opportunity to participate in the hearing. Similar submissions were made by the applicant, with the following additional concerns also raised:
   • the monitoring and review section of the TMP is inadequate and inappropriate as it does not include a mandatory requirement for regular monitoring and review. There is no external authority reviewing the outcome of the monitoring
   • council and HTfV are unlikely to be enforcing the TMP on weekends when the larger events are proposed
   • council must be the point of contact for any community complaints, not the coordinator nominated in the TMP
   • if a permit is granted, a condition should require the permit holder to provide an annual report of its monitoring and review to HTfV via council as the authority requiring the conditions
   • the following condition should also be included:

A post development Traffic Impact Assessment report must be submitted to and approved by the Head, Transport for Victoria and the responsible authority within 6 months of the 3 year anniversary of the use commencing. The Traffic Impact Assessment must identify any further mitigation measures that may be required. Any mitigation measures outlined in the post development Traffic Impact Assessment must be constructed to the satisfaction of and at no cost to the Head, Transport for Victoria and the responsible authority.

The report must be updated at any other time to reflect any approved increase in patron numbers.

1. The evidence is that the larger events will generate 280 vehicle movements (140 at arrival and 140 at departure) and that this traffic volume can be readily accommodated by the local street network. There is no evidence to support any submission or suggestion that this would have an impact on the operation or efficiency of Myring Street which would warrant notice being given. It is notable that council, as the relevant road manager, raised no objection to the use of Myring Street as proposed by the TMP.
2. In respect of submissions that the planning application originally proposed the use of Sawmill Road, it is true that this was shown as the route used by patrons approaching from the north in the accompanying traffic impact assessment. The proposal, however, did not mandate this outcome, nor did it propose that it be enforced. The use of Myring Street was not precluded and remained an option for accessing the subject land.
3. In the circumstances, we have not been persuaded that further notice of the TMP is necessary.
4. The evidence confirms that the Midland Highway and the surrounding street network can accommodate the traffic associated with the proposal. There is no evidence to the contrary. We give weight to the absence of an objection to the traffic impacts from both council and HTfV.
5. Having reviewed the TMP and considered the submissions, we conclude that the TMP provides a suitable means of addressing the traffic to ensure that unacceptable impacts do not arise. It clearly articulates how the requirements of the TMP will be disseminated to patrons and reinforced through the use of signs and management staff.
6. The TMP provides for a monitoring and review process, which we consider should be undertaken by a suitably qualified person. The frequency of the review and its timing is provided for in the relevant permit condition.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is varied. A permit is granted subject to conditions.
2. In determining what conditions should be included, we have had regard to the submissions and evidence, and to the discussion of the draft 'without prejudice' conditions provided by council. Notably, consistent with the submissions of the applicants and permit applicant, the permit will allow for up to 100 patrons for the regular weekly services (on Monday 6.00pm - 8.30pm; and Sunday 7.00am - 9.00am), as we have not included the provision of a 'secondary consent' process to vary the number of patrons.
3. The permission granted is solely that required pursuant to the provisions of the LDRZ. Given the exemption at clause 44.06-7, the Tribunal is unable to consider, or grant any permission in respect of, the BMO requirements. This is consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Myers v Southern Grampians SC.[12] It is for the council (and the permit applicant) to consider how this issue may be addressed/resolved.

Construct or carry out a building or works associated with a use section 2 of clause 32.03-1

1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to, and be 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 identified as TP0001, TP1004, TP2002, TP2003, TP2004, TP2005, TP3001 and TP4001, Rev A prepared by Orbit Architecture and dated 10/02/2022 but modified to show:

(a) provision of four on-site bicycle parking spaces

(b) undergrounding of the powerline

(c) a landscape plan (refer to Condition No. 3)

(d) details of the proposed works to the waterway (including re-alignment)

(e) any modifications required by the North Central Catchment Management Authority (refer to Conditions No. 50 - 52)

(f) any modifications required by Goulburn Murray Water (refer to Conditions No. 59 - 62)

1. The layout of the use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified unless otherwise agreed in writing by the responsible authority.

1. Before the development starts, a landscape plan must be submitted to, and be approved by, the responsible authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape plan identified as TP01A VCAT Issue 20.02.2025 and TP02, VCAT Issue 04.10.2021, prepared by CDA Design Group Pty Ltd and must show:

(a) layout of landscaping and planting within all open areas of the subject land

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

(c) buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary

(d) details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways

(e) 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

1. Before the use starts, all landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. When the landscaping works have been completed, written confirmation must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority that landscaping of the land has been undertaken in accordance with the endorsed landscape plan.
2. All landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
3. Before the development starts, tree protection fence(s) must be erected around the tree(s) nominated for retention on the endorsed plans to define a Tree Protection Zone. The Tree Protection Zone must be erected at a radius of 12 times the diameter at breast height (DBH) to a maximum of 15 metres, but no less than two metres from the base of the trunk. The fence must be constructed of star pickets/chain mesh or similar to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The tree protection fence(s) must remain in place until the completion of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the responsible authority.
4. No vehicular nor pedestrian access, trenching, storage of materials or equipment or soil excavation must occur within a Tree Protection Zone unless otherwise agreed in writing by the responsible authority.
5. Any weed infestations resulting from soil disturbance and/or the importation of sand, gravel and other material must be controlled during the construction period to ensure that there is no weed spread outside of the land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
6. Before the use starts all noxious weeds on the land must be eradicated to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
7. Before the use starts, tree pruning must be undertaken to the south of the driveway exit of the main car park to achieve acceptable sight distances, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The tree pruning must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. No amplified music, announcements or broadcasts are to be audible beyond the property boundary of the land.
2. All security alarms must be of a silent type and be directly connected to a security service to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
3. The use must operate in accordance with the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (Vic) as assessed by Environment Protection Authority Publication 1826 Noise limit and assessment protocol for the control of noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises and entertainment venues.
4. 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. All external plant and equipment must achieve the requirements of the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (Vic).
5. Provision must be made on the land for the storage and collection of waste and recyclables. This area must be graded and drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
6. All buildings must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
7. External lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect from light spill on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
8. All external materials, finishes and paint colours are to be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
9. No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed plans are permitted above the roof level of the building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the responsible authority.
10. All piping and ducting (excluding down pipes, guttering and rainwater heads) must be concealed from public view to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
11. All areas of disturbed ground must be stabilised and revegetated at the completion of the development to the satisfaction of the responsible authority
12. The use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected through the:

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

(b) appearance of any buildings, works or materials;

(c) hours of construction activity;

(d) inappropriate storage of any works or construction materials;

(e) emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, reflection or glare, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste and storm water runoff, waste products, grit or oil;

(f) the presence of vermin; and/or

in any other way, all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. The use must only operate, and patrons must only enter and exit the land, between the following hours.

The maximum number of patrons present on the land at any one time must not exceed that specified.

Saturday 10.00am to 1.00pm, only once every three weeks

Sunday 9.00am to 1.00pm, only once every three weeks

The Saturday Combined Service and the Sunday Combined Service must not occur on the same weekend.

1. Before the development starts, the owner must advise all persons undertaking any works, including vegetation removal, of all relevant permit conditions and associated statutory requirements or approvals.
2. To offset the removal of 0.031 hectares of native vegetation, the permit holder must secure a native vegetation offset in accordance with the Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (DELWP, 2017) as specified below:

(a) A general offset of 0.036 general habitat units:

1. located within the North Central Catchment Management Authority boundary or Mount Alexander municipal area
2. with a minimum strategic biodiversity value of 0.416.

1. Before any native vegetation is removed, evidence that the offset required by this permit has been secured must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. This evidence must be one or both of the following:

(a) An established first party offset site including a security agreement signed by both parties, and a management plan detailing the 10 year active management actions and ongoing management of the site; and/or

(b) Credit extract(s) allocated to the permit from the Native Vegetation Credit Register. A copy of the offset evidence will be endorsed by the responsible authority and form part of the permit.

1. Where the offset includes a first party offset(s), the permit holder must provide an annual offset site report to the responsible authority by the anniversary date of the execution of the offset security agreement, for a period of 10 consecutive years. After the tenth year, the landowner must provide a report at the reasonable request of a statutory authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of works, a Tree Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced arborist must be submitted to, and be approved by, the responsible authority. Once approved the plan will be endorsed and then form part of the permit. The Tree Management Plan must be in accordance Australian Standard AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites and detail:

(a) all tree protection zones and structural root zones for trees that are to be retained;

(b) the required tree protection measures such as fencing of tree protection areas and ground protection systems will be used;

(c) the type of works (if any) allowed within the tree protection zone;

(d) any services proposed to be located within the tree protection zone and how such services will be constructed;

(e) specific detail on what actions are required within the tree protection zone;

(f) details of how the root system of any tree to be retained will be managed. This must detail any initial non-destructive trenching and pruning of any roots required to be undertaken by the project arborist;

(g) all works within the tree protection zones of the trees to be retained to be constructed under the supervision of an arborist

all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. The recommendations contained in the endorsed Tree Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Before development starts, a Land Management Plan for the land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to, and be approved by, the responsible authority. Once approved the plan will be endorsed and then form part of the permit. The Land Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must outline how native vegetation on the land will be maintained, managed and improved, including:

(a) how native vegetation will be managed;

(b) how environmental weeds will be managed;

(c) how any revegetation will be undertaken in coordination with weed management activities to prevent recolonisation of weed species; and

(d) how rubbish and hazards will be removed.

The endorsed Land Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Before the development commences an Environmental Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to, and be approved by, the responsible authority. Once approved the Environmental Management Plan will be endorsed and then form part of the permit. The Environmental Management Plan must incorporate the recommendations of:

(a) the Stormwater Management Strategy Report prepared by Water Technology dated March 2022;

(b) the expert evidence of Mr Warwick Bishop in Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Proceeding P545/2024 dated 24 February 2025; and

(c) the expert evidence of Mr Brett Lane in Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Proceeding P545/2024 dated February 2025.

1. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the responsible authority, the development must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Environmental Management Plan, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. The Environmental Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Before the development starts, detailed access and drainage construction plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to, and be approved by, the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. All works constructed or carried out must be in accordance with those approved plans and completed to a standard satisfactory to the responsible authority.
2. The land, including landscaped and paved areas, must be graded and drained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority so as to prevent the discharge of water from the land across any road or onto any adjoining land.
3. The site stormwater discharge must not be increased by the development. The drainage system must include provision of a stormwater detention system to limit flows downstream from the development to pre-development levels in accordance with the current Australian rainfall and Runoff - Flood Analysis and Design for a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability event (IDM Design standards - Section 19.3 Requirements), to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
4. Drainage design must be in accordance with the Stormwater Management Strategy Report prepared by Water Technology and dated March 2022, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
5. Vehicle crossings must be constructed to current Council standards including:

(a) vehicle crossings must be generally in accordance with SD260 of the Infrastructure Design Manual

(b) crossings must be positioned maintaining a minimum of 3m clearance from the council trees located at the property frontages

(c) batters to be re-established either side of culverts to ensure free flow

(d) no impending or redirection of existing surface flow is allowed to occur as a result of these works.

1. All car parking areas and associated access lanes must be designed in accordance with AS2890.1:2004 and AS2890.6:2022, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. Before construction works start associated with the provision of car parking, detailed layout plans demonstrating compliance with AustRoads Publication Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice: Part 11 Parking and to the satisfaction of the relevant authority must be submitted to, and be approved by, the responsible authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions.
3. Before the use or occupation of the development starts, the area(s) set aside for parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

(a) surfaced with an all-weather seal coat / surfaced with crushed rock or gravel and treated to the satisfaction of the responsible authority to prevent dust;

(b) constructed in accordance with the approved plans;

(c) drained in accordance with an approved drainage plan;

(d) line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes;

(e) properly illuminated with lighting designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the responsible authority to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land;

(f) measures taken to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas of adjoining properties and to prevent direct vehicle access to an adjoining road other than by a vehicle crossing;

(g) provision of traffic control signage and or structures as required;

(h) provision of signage directing drivers to the area(s) set aside for car parking. Such signs are to be located and maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. This sign must not exceed 0.3 square metres

1. Car park areas must be constructed and drained to prevent diversion of flood or drainage waters and maintained in a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. Car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these purposes at all times.
3. The developer must restrict sediment discharges from any construction sites within the land in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (Environment Protection Authority 1991) and Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites (Environment Protection Authority 1995), to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
4. Before any works on the road reserve start, the owner must submit a Minor Works in a Road Reserve application and be issued a permit to occupy the road for works.

1. Before the development starts, a Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to, and be approved by, the Head, Transport for Victoria. Once approved, the Traffic Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The Traffic Management Plan must be to the satisfaction of the Head, Transport for Victoria, must be generally in accordance with the Traffic Management Plan prepared by Traffix Group Pty Ltd, dated April 2025 and must include:

(a) the different scale of events to occur on site, the hours of operation and patron numbers;

(b) for all services, including any larger services of more than 150 persons, mitigation measures and strategies to discourage patrons travelling to and from the site via the Sawmill Road and Midland Highway intersection;

(c) provision of local traffic route information to patrons indicating the preferred designated route for travel to and from the site;

(d) installation of advance directional road signage to direct traffic on the Midland Highway to turn at Myring Street, including the content of such signage;

(e) installation of signage at the site to direct exiting traffic to head south on Blakeley Road;

(f) any other temporary road treatments or staff directed to traffic controlling activities;

(g) details of how the traffic management information will be shared with the attending congregation;

(h) details of proposed implementation and monitoring measures to ensure effective on-going implementation of the Traffic Management Plan;

(i) contact details of a traffic and parking coordinator as a liaison with Mount Alexander Shire Council and Department of Transport and Planning (Head, Transport for Victoria);

(j) the process, timeframe and frequency for the preparation of a report by a suitably qualified person, and its submission to the responsible authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Head, Transport for Victoria and the responsible authority, and must detail the monitoring and review of the Traffic Management Plan, including details of, and timing for the implementation of, any additional mitigation measures to address any identified unacceptable traffic impacts; and

(k) any other relevant matter.

1. The endorsed Traffic Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. The use must operate in accordance with the endorsed Traffic Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
3. Any mitigation measures to address any identified unacceptable traffic impacts, as detailed in the report provided in accordance with the requirements of Condition No. 46(j) of this permit, must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. The finished floor level of the proposed place of worship must be constructed to a minimum of 297.5 metres AHD.
2. The place of worship and the overflow car park must be set back a minimum of 20 metres from the top of bank of the watercourse that traverses the property.
3. Any works on the site must be undertaken in accordance with the flood modelling undertaken by Water Technology for its Expert Report dated 5 October 2021. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the responsible authority and North Central Catchment Management Authority no filling or stockpiling of material is permitted within the flood-affected portion of the property shown in Figure 10-1 of Water Technology's statement. Any material that has been placed within this area must be entirely removed from the site or placed on land outside the 1% AEP flood extent as per Figure 10-1 of Water Technology's report.

1. The owner must enter into an agreement with Coliban Water for the provision of reticulated water supply and pressure sewerage services to the land and must comply with any requirements arising from any effect of the proposed development on Coliban Water assets.
2. Services must be provided to the place of worship in accordance with specifications of Coliban Water.
3. The owner must enter into an agreement with Coliban Water for the installation of the water tapping, meter assembly and digital data device, located in an accessible location within 2.0 metres, but no closer than 600mm, inside a title boundary line fronting a road reserve.
4. All private works for water supply and sanitary drainage must be constructed in accordance with the National Plumbing and Drainage Code of Australia being AS 3500, the Melbourne Retail Water Agencies' Water Metering & Servicing Guidelines 2022 and or any relevant requirements of Coliban Water.
5. All Coliban Water assets within the development site, both existing and proposed, must be protected by an easement in favour of Coliban Region Water Corporation.
6. The owner must make payment to Coliban Water of New Customer Contributions for water and sewer.

1. All construction and ongoing activities must be in accordance with sediment control principles outlined in Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (Environment Protection Authority, 1991).
2. No buildings must be constructed within 20 metres of any waterways (including dams on waterways) or on any drainage lines.
3. A buffer strip of native vegetation must be established and maintained on both sides of the waterway in accordance with the landscape plan dated October 2021.
4. All wastewater from the place of worship must be disposed of via connection to the reticulated sewerage system in accordance with the requirements of the relevant urban water authority.

1. No drainage, effluent, waste, soil or other materials must enter, be stored on or be directed to the railway land.

1. The applicant must ensure that existing and proposed buildings and electrical installations on the land are compliant with the Victorian Service and Installation Rules (VSIR).
2. Any buildings must comply with the clearances required by the Electricity Safety (Installations) Regulations.
3. Any construction work must comply with the Energy Safe Victoria's No Go Zone rules.

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

(a) The development is not started within two (2) years of the issued date of this permit.

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

(c) The use does not start within two (2) years of completion of the development.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

APPENDIX B - DISPUTED/CONTESTED HEAD, TRANSPORT FOR VICTORIA CONDITIONS

1. Prior to the commencement of buildings and works, a Functional Layout Plan and functional stage Road Safety Audit must be submitted to and approved by the Head, Transport for Victoria. When approved by the Head, Transport for Victoria, the plans must be endorsed by the responsible authority and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans date stamped 10/02/2022 and annotated PLACE OF WORSHIP PA330/2021 by Arbit Architecture but modified to show:

(d) Midland Highway and Myring Street intersection:

1. Linemarking modifications at the intersection to extend the storage capacity of the right turn lane to the maximum length practicable.

(e) Installation of advance directional road signage to direct northbound traffic to the site to turn right at Myring Street.

(f) Midland Highway and Sawmill Road intersection:

1. A sealed Rural Auxiliary left turn lane treatment (type "AUL") for the southbound left turn into Sawmill Road with full depth sealed shoulder must be provided in accordance with Figure 8.4 of the AUSTROADS publication, "Guide to Road Design - Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections " - 2021.

2. Relocation and reinstatement of the existing guard rail on Midland Highway to accommodate the left turn lane treatment.

(g) Any other relevant matter.

1. Prior to the approval of the Functional Layout Plan and prior to the commencement of use, a detailed engineering layout (including lighting layout) in conjunction with a 'Detailed Design Stage' Road Safety Audit (RSA) must be submitted to and approved by the Head, Transport for Victoria. The RSA must be undertaken by an independent Head, Transport for Victoria's pre-qualified audit team and be conducted in accordance with Austroads - Road Safety Audit (Second Edition, 2002).
2. Prior to the commencement of use, the roadworks outlined in the Functional Layout Plan required under Condition 1 of the Head, Transport for Victoria's conditions must be completed at no cost to and to the satisfaction of the Head, Transport for Victoria.
3. Prior to the commencement of the use, a Traffic Management Plan with a Risk Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Head, Transport for Victoria and the responsible authority, using Head, Transport for Victoria's prequalified contractors/consultants, and implemented at no cost to Head, Transport for Victoria. The Traffic Management Plan must include:

(h) Traffic management measures for any larger events (for more than 466 patrons). This may include temporary road treatments or staff directed to traffic controlling activities.

(i) Any other relevant matter.

1. Prior to the commencement of the use, a Patron Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Head, Transport for Victoria and the responsible authority. The Patron Management Plan must:

(j) Outline the different scales of events to occur on site and the hours of event operation.

(k) Identify mitigation measures and strategies to be applied to each different event type.

(l) The mitigation measures and strategies will need to;

1. Reduce the number of northbound vehicles travelling to the site via the Sawmill Road and Midland Highway intersection particularly during peak arrival periods.

This may include the incorporation of signage on site or at the relevant intersections, travel information distributed to patrons, with event information, or on websites.

(m) Any relevant measures outlined in the Traffic Management Plan required by Condition 4[13] of the Head, Transport for Victoria's conditions.

(n) Any other relevant matter.

1. The use must operate in accordance with the endorsed Patron Management Plan and must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Head, Transport for Victoria.

[1] Pursuant to clause 73.03, the land use term 'place of assembly' includes 'place of worship'.

[2] 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 will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[3] Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit, issued by council on 21 April 2024.

[4] Albeit with selected exceptions: Amusement parlour, Carnival, Cinema-based entertainment facility, Circus and Nightclub.

[6] 83 Blakeley Road, Castlemaine, Traffic Noise Impact Assessment, Enfield Acoustics, V823-01-L Acoustic Report (R1), 11 April 2023.

[7] Statement of Evidence, VCAT Reference No. P545/20245 & P687/2024 - matter of 83 Blakeley Road, Castlemaine. Doc. Ref: V2167-01-L Statement of Evidence (R0), 24 February 2025.

[9] Pursuant to clause 66.02-11 'Land use and transport integration' as the proposal is a place of assembly comprising 400 or more seats and has a gross floor area exceeding 600 square metres.

[10] ASD is 'Approach Site Distance', which is defined as 'the distance travelled by a vehicle between the time when the driver receives a stimulus signifying the need to stop and the time the vehicle comes to rest. ASD is the minimum requirement which should be met on each leg of the intersection'.

[11] The submission states that it is on behalf of respondents G Courtis, J & P Curtis, M Dean, K Michelmore, C Pickering, N Sharplin and K Swanton. We have not been provided with any evidence that Ms Swanton is authorised to make a submission on behalf of anyone other than herself and Ms Dean.

[12] [2023] VSC 658.

[13] Included as condition 46 in the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit.