G Rockman, H & G Mohamed, D Anderson, K Oddie, L Dillon, V Lavars, L Lewis, K Lavars, G & M Lavars, M Leser, H Stephens, M Dainty, A Woods.

Trustees of the Ukranian Catholic Church in Australia v Melbourne CC [2008] VCAT 2388

1. Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 the permit application is amended by changing the name of the permit applicant to;

Trustees of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Australia, Eparchy of St Peter and Paul of Melbourne.

1. The decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside. In permit application TP-2007-1142 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 35-37 Canning Street, and 28-30 Shiel Street North Melbourne, in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A. The permit allows;
   • Use of the land for a child care centre in the Residential 1 Zone.
   • Construction of a building or construction or carrying out of works for a use in Section 2 of Clause 32.01-1.
   • Construction of a building or construction or carrying out of works pursuant to the Heritage Overlay.

Mr Connor called Mr M Negri, town planner of Contour Consultants, Ms L Hui, acoustic engineer of Marshall Day Acoustics, and Mr D Hancox, traffic engineer of TTM Consulting

G Rockman, D Anderson, K Oddie & L Lewis appeared on their own behalf.

V Lavars appeared on her own behalf and on behalf of K, G & Lavars.

H Mohamed appeared on his own behalf and on behalf of G Mohamed and M Dainty.

Buildings and works to a presbytery and Sunday school building and the use of the land for the purpose of a child care centre, catering for 74 children

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) to review a decision to refuse a permit.

Clause 32.01-1; Use of the land for a child care centre in the Residential 1 one.

Clause 32.01-6; Construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 of Clause 32.01-1.

Clause 43.01-1; Construct a building or construct or carry out works pursuant to the Heritage Overlay.

State Planning Policy Framework; Clause 12 Metropolitan Development

Clause 18.02 Car parking and public transport access to development.

• 21.03 Vision & approach
• 21.04 Land use
• 21.05 City structure & built form.
• 21.08 Local areas.

The review site comprises two parcels of land. The principal parcel is located on the south west corner of Canning Street and Dryburgh Street, North Melbourne. A church, presbytery, Sunday school and associated gardens and car parking occupy this site.

The second parcel of land is located to the south of the church on the opposite side of a lane (Norris Lane) which separates the two sites. This site contains a convent and car parking.

To the north, west and east of the principal site the surrounding land use is predominantly residential. Norris Lane to the south serves the rear of the church and a number of other properties which have a frontage to Shiel Street.

VCAT Application for Review No. P2044/2006, Trustees of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Australia, Eparchy of St Peter and St Paul of Melbourne v Melbourne CC, 21 December 2006. Application under Section 77 Planning and Environment Act 1987 , to refuse a permit for a child care centre. Tribunal Directions providing opportunity for the submission of further information addressing issues of concern. Application subsequently withdrawn.

1. The Trustees of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Australia, Eparchy of St Peter and Paul of Melbourne, applied to the Melbourne City Council for a permit to carry out works to a building used as a presbytery and associated uses and to use the building for the purpose of a child care centre.
2. The Council gave notice of the application and received 21 objections to the application. The Council decided to refuse the application on the following grounds;
   • Inadequate/inappropriate provision of play space for proposed child care places.
   • Inadequate consideration of acoustic impacts on adjoining neighbours.
   • Inadequate resolution of traffic movements and car parking issues.
   • Inadequate pick up and drop off arrangement.
3. The permit applicant has applied to the Tribunal seeking a review of the Council's decision.
4. The issues in dispute in this matter are as follows:

1. To what extent should the Tribunal assess the proposal's compliance with Department of Human Services guidelines for child care centres? 2. Is the site an appropriate site for the proposed use?

1. Will the proposed use have unacceptable impacts on the amenity of neighbours? 2. Is sufficient car parking being made available for the proposed use?
2. Having considered all the evidence and the submissions and having inspected the site and neighbouring properties, I have concluded that I am not required to determine whether the proposal complies with the development guidelines for child care centres which are administered by the Department of Human Services. It is appropriate that I should be satisfied that the proposal is capable of complying with the DHS guidelines but the task of assessing the detailed configuration and size of rooms, location, size and adequacy of play areas, number of staff and the like, is a task to be undertaken by the Department following the grant of a planning permit. I was not presented with information which would persuade me that the site is not capable of complying with the relevant guidelines. If the site cannot comply with the guidelines it will not be approved by the Department.
3. I am also satisfied that the proposal will meet a community need and that the site is suitably located for the proposed use. Adequate car parking is provided for the use. Off site amenity impacts can be contained within acceptable limits.
4. My reasons are set out below.

To what extent should the Tribunal assess the proposal's compliance with Department of Human Services guidelines for child care centres?

1. I received submissions from the Council and objectors to the effect that the proposal ought not to be approved because of concerns about the adequacy of proposed outdoor play areas. These concerns related primarily to the size and configuration of the play areas. It was submitted that the play areas are inadequate because they fail to provide an appropriate amenity for children, because they are too small for the number of children intended to be catered for, and because some of the spaces are isolated from rooms and not within a line of sight for supervision.
2. The Council relied on the internal advice it received from its Manager Families Children and Youth who opposed the grant of a permit partly for the reasons summarised above. The proposal was described in that internal advice as being "well below best practice".
3. In addition to the concerns about the play areas, criticisms about staffing numbers, room sizes, toilet locations and storage areas were also raised.
4. The Council and objectors submitted that these issues are relevant to the consideration of the planning merits of the proposal, notwithstanding that they are also matters which are covered by guidelines for child care centres which are administered by the Department of Human Services (DHS). It was submitted that the proposal's alleged non-compliance with the guidelines is a reflection of the difficulties associated with retrofitting a child care centre into an existing building, especially in circumstances where other uses are also being conducted on the site. In support of his submission that these matters are relevant to my consideration of this application Mr Dietrich referred me to a decision of the Tribunal[1] which dealt with issues similar to those raised in this case and in which the Tribunal found that the plans presented by the applicant lacked sufficient detail to enable a conclusion to be drawn about the proposal's compliance with DHS requirements.
5. The Wilmar decision relied on by Mr Dietrich was also referred to favourably by Senior Member Sharkey in his decision on the earlier application for a child care centre on this site. Senior Member Sharkey was not satisfied that the level of information submitted with the application was sufficient to allow findings to be made on a range of matters including the adequacy of play areas. The applicants were provided with the opportunity to provide revised plans addressing these matters. The applicants chose not to take up the opportunity offered.
6. I'm not persuaded that the decision in Wilmar and the decision of Senior Member Sharkey are authority for the propositions put to me by the Council and the objectors. A proper reading of those decisions reveals that in both cases, the decisions were partly based on a concern about the level and quality of information provided in the application material. The lack of information had the effect of preventing a considered assessment of the merits of the application from being undertaken. The failure of the applicants in both cases to provide plans which demonstrated that the proposals were capable of meeting DHS requirements was an influencing factor in both cases but was only one of a number of issues which influenced the Tribunal to refuse the applications. In neither case did the Tribunal express the view that it was required to determine whether the proposal met all DHS requirements, or that compliance with all DHS requirements is a prerequisite for the grant of a planning permit.
7. Mr Connor provided me with a detailed summary of the regulatory regime which exists in relation to the licensing, control and management of child care centres[2]. The DHS plays a fundamental role in the administration of that regime, and its role includes undertaking an assessment of the detailed design of a proposal and its suitability for providing an appropriate environment for the care of children. An appreciation of that regulatory regime is important because it highlights the high level of scrutiny to which child care centre proposals are subjected. It is my understanding that the DHS will not commence a detailed assessment of a proposal until such time as a planning permit is issued. In the event that the Department's assessment concludes that its requirements are met, the proposal will receive the appropriate approvals. Alternatively the Department may not be satisfied about these matters, in which case the proposal will not receive approval.
8. I think the objectors who raised concerns about the adequacy of play areas, staffing numbers, room sizes, toilet locations and storage areas, should be able to take some comfort from the fact that these are matters which receive due consideration by those charged with licensing child care centres.
9. It is appropriate that the application material before me should be of a sufficient standard and level of detail to enable me to be satisfied that the proposal is capable of complying with the DHS guidelines but the task of assessing the detailed configuration and size of rooms, location, size, orientation and adequacy of play areas, number of staff, location of toilets and the like, is a task to be undertaken by DHS following the grant of a planning permit.
10. I am satisfied that the application material is sufficient to enable to form a view that the proposal is capable of complying with DHS guidelines. In reaching that conclusion I note that the proposal makes provision for three separate outdoor play areas. Play area no.1 is located directly abutting the eastern side of the building which is to be converted for the child care centre. This space has an area of 162 m2. Area no.2 is located on the western side of the building and has an area of 134 m2. Area no.3 is to be located to the north east, adjacent to the retained presbytery and has an area of 233 m2. A total area of 529 m2 of outdoor play area is therefore proposed. The plans show that these areas are to be fenced and secured and provided with landscaping, sun shades and decking.
11. The adequacy of these spaces for the number of children enrolled in the centre will be determined by the DHS.
12. The plans also show the internal layout of the building, toilet locations and number, door openings and the like. The adequacy of the internal layout and other matters such as staff numbers will be determined by the DHS.
13. Having regard to the subsequent licensing processes and associated assessment of the proposal by DHS I need enquire no further with respect to these matters.

Is the site an appropriate site for the proposed use?

1. In addition to the concerns about compliance with DHS guidelines which I have addressed above, the submissions of the Council and the objectors focussed predominantly on site interface, amenity, traffic and parking matters. These are matters which I consider in more detail in subsequent sections of this decision, but I think it is relevant to the consideration of those matters to record my findings that the review site is an appropriate site for the proposed use.
2. The proposed use is a section 2 permit required use in the zone. The starting point for the assessment of the site's suitability is the purpose of the Residential 1 zone[3] which contemplates the provision of a range of educational, recreational, religious and community uses, which serve a local community need and are appropriately located.
3. A child care centre is a use which clearly falls into the category of uses which are specifically contemplated as being appropriate in a Residential 1 zone. The Tribunal has over many years found that child care centres are appropriate uses in residential areas[4].
4. The policy framework of the planning scheme also lends support to my conclusion that the review site is appropriately located.
5. Clause 21.04 of the Council's Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) addresses land use amenity principles and for Residential 1 zones, the maintenance of the highest standards of residential amenity are encouraged, but in appropriate locations educational, recreational, religious and community uses, which serve a local community need are contemplated.
6. Clause 22.14 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme is a local policy for Discretionary uses in the Residential 1 zone. The policy applies to all applications to use land for discretionary uses in the Residential 1 Zone. The policy acknowledges the important contribution which non residential uses can make to local neighbourhoods. The policy also recognises that discretionary uses can be incompatible with the objective of protecting residential amenity and the policy is aimed at managing the potential for adverse amenity impacts by requiring applicants to demonstrate that there is a net benefit to local residents and the local community, and by imposing a range of locational and managerial criteria.
7. In broad terms, the policy seeks to achieve a balance between the provision of community facilities and the protection of residential amenity. It does this by encouraging discretionary uses to locate in existing purpose built, non residential buildings, on corner sites and on main roads. The scale and intensity of the use is expected to be compatible with the character and amenity of the area. The policy places the onus on the agent of change to minimise impacts on the neighbourhood.
8. I have concluded that the review is an appropriate site for the use principally because the incorporation of the proposed use onto a site which has a long history of non residential use is entirely consistent with the policy framework of the planning scheme. I have also been influenced by the physical characteristics and the context of the site, the combination of which assists in minimising potential off site amenity impacts. The site is located on a corner and has substantial frontages to both Canning and Dryburgh Streets, a feature which assists in accommodating on street car parking. While not a main road, Dryburgh Street has a dual carriageway and a central median. A right of way runs along the site's southern boundary and it is proposed to provide a car park associated with the existing church facilities and the child care centre on Church land located directly opposite the principal review site, on the south side of the right of way. The site has one direct, sensitive residential interface but is otherwise separated from direct residential abuttals.

1. Mr Connor provided a concise summary of the benefits to the community of ensuring an adequate supply of child care places. Government policy recognises the importance of child care centres to the achievement of social cohesion and economic prosperity[5]. The State Planning Policy Framework of the Melbourne Planning Scheme recognises the need to provide land for a range of accessible community resources, such as affordable housing, places of employment, open space, and education, cultural, health and community support (mental, aged, disabled, youth and family services) facilities[6].
2. In a general sense I think there is a commonly held view that a need exists for the provision of child care centres. Neither the Council nor the objectors submitted otherwise.
3. The question arises however as to how this ought to influence my decision in determining this application. Mr Connor submitted that the question of need is a relevant factor in this case which ought to have some role in arriving at the appropriate balance to be struck between competing policies. Mr Connor referred me to a decision of the Tribunal[7] which considered this issue in relation to an application for a boarding house. The Tribunal made the following pertinent observations;

Need is a fundamental concept in town planning, because town planning is essentially concerned with shaping our physical environment to meet the social economic and environmental needs of the community. However in individual development applications the role of need is complex. At one end of the scale, there are ubiquitous land uses in relation to which the Tribunal has said that need is not a matter for the planning system, rather it is a matter for the competitive market place. On the other hand there are important community based uses where the Tribunal has found that the need for the use can outweigh other important, and ordinarily decisive, planning considerations. An often quoted example of this latter case is the helipad at the Alfred Hospital.

Nevertheless, there is a middle ground in which need may not be a decisive factor in the case of an individual development application, but will be a factor which influences the balances to be struck between competing planning policy consideration.............. [8]

1. I agree with Mr Connor that a child care centre is a land use which exhibits some of the characteristics of the middle ground cases identified in Tulcany. The community benefit to be derived from the provision of child care centres is therefore a relevant factor which influences the balance to be struck between competing policies.
2. As I have stated the need for child care centres was not disputed by the parties in this case, but a concern was expressed that this proposal would not fulfil a local need but would instead seek to draw its customers from a wider regional or even metropolitan area. It was submitted that the zone purpose and the policy framework contemplate non residential uses which serve a local community need, a test which this proposal does not meet.
3. The issue of local need is one which has been the subject of consideration by this Tribunal over a long period of time. The Tribunal had consistently held that non residential uses often serve a wider catchment than the immediate neighbourhood. The fulfilment of a local need test under the planning scheme does not require that every customer, patient or patron of that use, or a specified proportion of them, must reside within an area which could be defined as local.

35 I have observed in other cases in which this issue has arisen[9] that the degree to which local need is a relevant consideration, will vary depending on the circumstances of each case. I can, for example, envisage circumstances in which greater or lesser weight would be given to this factor depending on a proposal's location within the residential area, the character of that area and the pattern of surrounding land uses, and also depending on the nature of the use itself.

1. Having regard to the community nature of the use, the scale and intensity of this use, and the long history of non residential use of the site, I do not think that the circumstances of this case warrant a departure from the long established principle for considering local need.

Will the proposed use have unacceptable impacts on the amenity of neighbours?

1. Many of the concerns raised by objectors related to previous or existing uses on the site. It is not necessary for me to itemise the objector's allegations about the behaviour of the Church's parishioners but suffice to say those allegations create an impression that the Church has not always been a good neighbour.
2. It was also submitted that the planning permits previously issued for the place of worship have not been complied with, specifically with respect to the provision of on site car parking. It was submitted that this has contributed to many of the problems experienced by neighbours at times when over flow car parking has occurred.
3. What is the significance or relevance of these matters to my consideration of the merits of the proposal?
4. I think the first point which must be emphasised is that notwithstanding the nature and variety of the allegations, no enforcement proceeding against the applicants is either on foot or has been issued against the applicants. Mr Connor advised me that no general nuisance proceeding has ever been commenced in a court, and nor has such a proceeding ever been threatened. As Mr Connor correctly pointed out, there is therefore no vehicle available by which to assess and test the veracity of the allegations.
5. One implication of poor behaviour by a permit applicant which might have some relevance to my consideration of the application is that it would bring into doubt the confidence that I could have in the permit applicant to comply with permit conditions.
6. In order for me to form an opinion that a permit should not issue because the applicant is unlikely to comply with permit conditions, I would need to have before me significantly more substance to the allegations of poor behaviour than the untested allegations which have been presented to me. The failure to provide on site car parking in accordance with (much) earlier planning permits is the only allegation of non compliance with planning permits levelled at the applicants, but neither the Council nor the residents have seen fit to pursue enforcement proceeding against the permit applicant. As I have noted above, I was advised that there are no other general nuisance proceedings pending or threatened.
7. I intend therefore to proceed with a consideration of the merits of the proposal and its amenity impacts on the basis that where a permit is issued, it is a reasonable expectation that conditions will be observed or enforced[10].
8. The principal amenity impact associated with the proposed use relates to the noise primarily generated from the outside play areas. The applicant called evidence on the acoustic impact of the proposal from Ms Hui and relied on that evidence.
9. Ms Hui's evidence was not contested by alternative expert evidence.
10. Ms Hui assessed the impact of the proposal from each of the three play areas on the nearest residential properties. These properties are the dwelling immediately abutting the review site to the west (which will abut play area 2) and the dwellings located on the north side of Canning Street opposite play area no. 3.
11. Ms Hui outlined the criteria against which the acoustic impact of the proposal has been assessed and advised that there is no legislative control over the noise emitted from a child care centre. Ms Hui advised that she had relied on the guidelines contained in a document prepared by the Association of Australian Acoustic Consultants (AAAC) which established criteria based on the hours per day which the play areas are to be used. For a play area used for more than a total of 2 hours per day the criteria identifies a background noise level plus 5dB. Ms Hui recommended that a 2.4 m acoustic fence be constructed along the western boundary of play area 2 and a 1.5 m high acoustic fence along the northern boundary of play area 3. Subject to the appropriate construction of these fences it was Ms Hui's evidence that the AAAC criteria would be met for the property to the west of play area 2. Ms Hui advised that without an acoustic treatment of the fence to play area 3, the AAAC criteria would be exceeded by 1dB for the properties on the northern side of Canning Street. Ms Hui regarded this non compliance with the criteria as inconsequential but recommended that acoustic treatment of the northern fence would be desirable.
12. In arriving at my conclusion that the noise impacts can be contained within acceptable limits, I have been influenced by the fact that the source of the noise is in effect the sound of children playing and the noise source is limited to specific times during the day, and are confined to week days and daylight hours. I acknowledge that there are people, for example shift workers, for whom day light hours are important in terms of obtaining some peace and quiet. On balance however, I think that the proposed acoustic treatments recommended by Ms Hui are sufficient to ensure that the acoustic impact of the proposal are not unreasonable in a residential context.
13. During the course of the hearing there was some discussion about the visual impact of the 2.4 m fence on the western boundary and it was suggested that the fence could be constructed of solid, non transparent material up to a height of 1.8 m with a transparent material of 600 mm above that.
14. I am of the view that some form of treatment is necessary for that acoustic fence and the use of a combination of non transparent and transparent material would be appropriate. I do not intend however to be prescriptive about this matter and I am satisfied that this is a matter which can be resolved by a condition requiring the fence to be constructed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The Council may wish to consult the neighbour at 39 Canning Street prior to approving the final detail of the fence construction.

Is sufficient car parking being made available for the proposed use?

1. The Council and the objector's concerns in relation to this matter focussed largely on what was termed the overlapping uses currently conducted on the site and the contribution that a further use will make to the car parking and traffic conditions in Canning and Dryburgh Streets. Reference was also made to the applicant's failure to provide on site car parking in accordance with the 1974 permit under which the place of worship was established.
2. Concerns was also expressed about the functionality of the proposed car parking layout and the proposed pick up and drop off arrangements.
3. The concern about the overlapping uses on the site seems to manifest itself in relation to car parking and traffic generation issues.
4. My consideration of the issue is limited to a consideration of the proposal for the child care centre and while it is appropriate that I have regard to the existing car parking conditions, I am not able to deal with any of the issues raised by the objectors about the existing use. Nor am I able to make findings with respect to the alleged non compliance with the car parking requirements imposed by the original permits.
5. I do make the observation however that I was not presented with any submissions that any of the activities currently carried out on site fall outside the permissions previously granted. While I appreciate that there may very well be occasions when traffic and parking associated with the place of worship has created inconvenience and possibly annoyance for neighbouring residents, the review site is a place of worship and in addition to regular congregations, weddings and funerals are a normal part of a place of worship's activities. On such occasions, overflow car parking can be expected.
6. I also make the observation that the impression created by objectors of constant and persistent traffic and car parking mayhem in Canning and Dryburgh Streets, is not a picture which is supported by the evidence led in this case.
7. What will be the impact of the child care centre from a traffic management and car parking perspective?
8. There are currently 11 parking spaces provided on the principal review site. Six of those spaces will be removed to make provision for one of the play areas. It is proposed to provide a total of 32 spaces either on the review site or on adjacent church land at the rear of 28 - 30 Shiel Street. Mr Hancox recommended the removal of two of those spaces (in front of the Church accessed off Canning Street). An additional 19 parking spaces are therefore proposed.
9. It was the evidence of Mr Hancox that the child care centre will generate a parking demand for staff which fluctuates between 5 and 8 during the day. A set down and collection (drop off and pick up) parking accumulation rate of 0.08 spaces per child has been calculated on the basis of surveys conducted at other comparable child care centres. Mr Hancox estimated a peak set down accumulation of 6 vehicles with an 85th percentile demand of 4 spaces.
10. It was Mr Hancoxs' evidence that drop off and pick up of children is most likely to occur in Canning street and that there is ample on street parking available to accommodate that occurrence at both morning and afternoon peaks.
11. The proposal provides the opportunity for an increased provision of off street car parking associated with the place of worship, in excess of that required to meet the staff parking demand for the child care centre. The reliance on on-street parking for the short duration drop off and pick up activity is reasonable in the circumstances and is capable of being accommodated within the street network without any significant deterioration in the amenity of the neighbourhood and within the capacity of existing on street parking facilities.

1. It follows from the above reasons that it is the Tribunal's conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be set aside and a permit be granted.
2. In deciding the conditions to be included on the permit I have had regard to the draft conditions provided to the Tribunal by the responsible authority and the submissions and evidence of the parties in addition to the matters which arise from these reasons.

1. Prior to the commencement of the use and development hereby permitted the applicant must submit to the Responsible Authority three copies of plans drawn to scale generally in accordance with the plans submitted but amended to show:
   • (a) Deletion of the two car parking spaces located at the front of the Church.
   • (b) The provision of acoustic fencing along the western boundary of play area 2 and along the northern boundary of play area 3 in accordance with the evidence of L Hui presented at the hearing of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 14 August 2008.
   • (c) Details of the acoustic fences including height, configuration and materials of construction.
   • (d) Details of all proposed shade sails in play areas, including layout plans and post heights;
   • (e) The provision to be made for storage and disposal of refuse and waste generated by the permitted use;
   • (f) Any modifications to the layout and design of the premises required by the Department of Human Services.

These amended plans must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and when approved shall be the endorsed plans of this permit.

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the prior consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. The use of any land or building or part thereof as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. The first floor hall must not be used as part of the child care centre except with the written consent of the responsible authority.
4. Prior to the commencement of the use a Management Plan for the child care centre shall be prepared and submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This Management Plan must address:
   • (a) Hours of operation and number of children to be enrolled at the child care centre;
   • (b) Actions the child care centre will undertake to respect the amenity of nearby residential properties and ensuring noise from the child care centre does not adversely affect nearby properties;
   • (c) Ensuring that staff of the child care centre use car spaces provided on- site.
   • (d) Ensuring that parents of children enrolled at the child care centre are encouraged to use short-term parking in either Canning or Dryburgh Streets and do not use Norris Lane or Shiel Street to drop off or pick up children;
   • (e) Ensuring that deliveries to the site respect the amenity of nearby residential properties and do not adversely impact on the local street network; and
   • (f) Any other aspects of the ongoing operation of the child care centre required by the Department of Human Services.
5. Prior to the commencement of the use, the applicant must provide a 10 Minute Monday to Friday Parking Area (utilising three existing Disabled Car Spaces outside the Canning Street and Dryburgh Street frontages of the premises) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. The owner of the subject land shall demolish all unnecessary vehicle crossings, including reinstatement of existing footpath adjacent to the property, at no cost to Council and in accordance with plans and specifications first approved the Responsible Authority.
7. No vehicles under the control of the staff of the premises may reverse into or out of Dryburgh Street from Norris Lane.
8. The number of children enrolled to be accommodated on the site must at no time exceed seventy four (74).
9. The child care centre must operate only between the hours of 7.OOam and 6.30 pm, on Mondays to Fridays.
10. The external play area along the western boundary of the site must not be used before 8.3Oam on any day.
11. The acoustic fences must be erected as indicated on the endorsed plan, prior to the commencement of the use, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12. No form of public address system, loudspeaker, amplifier, relay or other audio equipment associated with the child care centre which is audible from outside the building must be installed on the land.
13. All garbage and other waste material must be stored in an area set aside for such purpose to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14. No garbage bin or waste materials generated by the permitted use shall be deposited or stored outside the site and bins must be returned to the garbage storage area as soon as practicable after garbage collection. Garbage collection must only be between the hours of 7am to 9pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 9pm Saturday and Sunday.
15. Any external lighting must be provided with baffles to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority so that no direct light shall be emitted outside the site.
16. The sign, including its structure and advertising material therein as shown on the endorsed plan, shall at all times be maintained in good order and condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
17. The location, size, material of construction, colours, wording and degree of illumination of the sign shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
18. The sign hereby permitted must not be animated or contain any flashing light.
19. The time for the commencement of the use and development hereby authorised is, pursuant to Section 68(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, specified as 2 years from the date of issue of this permit and the time for completion is specified as 2 years from the date of such commencement.
20. The time within which the use and development is to be commenced or completed may on application made before or within 3 months after the expiry date of this permit be extended by the Responsible Authority.

[1] Wilmar Child Care Centre Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2004] VCAT 2483 (10 December, 2004).

[2] The core approval required for child care centres is considered and granted under and the Children Services Act 1996.

[3] The purpose of the Residential 1 zone is at Clause 32.01 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

[4] Cann v MMBW (1985) 15 APA 49. Se also Zammit v Shire of Melton (1993/28050) unreported ; editorial comment (1993) 11 AATR 102; Fabio Lo-Guidice v City of Boroondara (1997/14350 unreported; editorial comment 19 AATR 124).

[5] Mr Connor tabled the document Children's Services in Victoria Policy Procedures General Guidelines (May 1997) Introduction Roles and Responsibilities of Funded Agencies Service Provision Guidelines.

[7] Tulcany Pty Ltd v Knox CC [2003] VCAT 1627

[9] Bruce Allen Architect v Melbourne City Council , (unreported) VCAT Application No. P3388/2002, 22 September, 2003.

[10] This approach is consistent with the approach adopted by the Tribunal over many years. Refer to First Cashmore Pty Ltd v Macedon Ranges Shire Council (P781/2004).