1. In application P705/2025 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2. In planning permit application PLP073/24 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 2 Stanley Street Wallan VIC 3756 in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A. The permit allows:

Buildings and works for a use in Section 2

P Nickas, of Nickas Legal. He called evidence from:

• J Patrick, landscape architect of John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd
• R Barnes, acoustician of Waveform Acoustics
• A Pagliaro, town planner of Urbis
• L Furness, traffic engineer of Traffix Group Pty Ltd

Development and use of a 92 place childcare centre.

Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) - to review the refusal to grant a permit.

Clause 32.08-10 - Construct a building or construct or carry out works for a Section 2 use

The site is located on the north-east corner of the intersection of Stanley and Duke Streets, Wallan. Stanley Street informally terminates before its junction with Duke Street. The site has a frontage of 34.2 metres to Stanley Street and 50.3 metres to Duke Street, with an approximate overall site area of 1810 square metres. The site is currently developed with an existing dwelling with its two crossovers accessing the site from Stanley Street.

The site benefits from existing vegetation including a number of mature canopy trees.

More broadly, the Wallan Town Centre, which comprises a mix of retail, commercial and community uses, is located approximately 300 metres to the north-east of the site. Duke Street provides access to the Northern Highway, which is located 200 metres to the east and forms part of the Principal Road Network.

1. Warragul Properties Pty Ltd ('applicant') proposes to develop and use a childcare centre at 2 Stanley Street, Wallan. In July 2025, Mitchell Shire Council ('council') determined to refuse to grant a planning permit for the proposed use and development. The permit applicant has requested the Tribunal to review council's decision.
2. Council refused the proposal on the following grounds:
   • The proposal does not meet the objective of the policy at Clause 13.05-1S (Noise management) of the Planning Policy Framework in that the proposed acoustic fencing for noise mitigation purposes results in a design response that is not in keeping with the character of the area.
   • The proposal does not meet the objective of the policy at Clause 13.07-1S (Land use compatibility) of the Planning Policy Framework in that the use will result in adverse off-site impacts that are incompatible in the neighbourhood.
   • The proposal does not meet the objective of the policies at Clauses 15.01-1S and 15.01-2S (Urban design) and Clause 15.01-5S (Neighbourhood character) of the Planning Policy Framework in that it fails to contribute positively to the local context; is not a satisfactory design response to the features and characteristics of the site; is potentially unsafe for pedestrians traversing the site; and does not recognise the underlying landscape character of the neighbourhood.
   • The proposal does not meet the objective of the policy at Clause 17.02-1S (Business) of the Planning Policy Framework in that it fails to meet the community need for childcare centres that are accessible and make efficient use of existing infrastructure without adversely impacting the neighbourhood.
   • The proposal does not meet the objective of the policy at Clause 18.01-1S (Land use and transport integration) in that it does not protect the existing transport infrastructure from encroachment or detriment and would impact on the current or future function of the road asset.
   • The proposal does not meet the objective of the policy at Clause 19.02-2S (Education facilities) in that the proposed use and development will not integrate into the local neighbourhood and community to an acceptable level.
   • The proposal does not meet with the purpose of the General Residential Zone in that it does not implement the Planning Policy Framework, nor does it respond well to the existing neighbourhood character.
   • The proposal does not meet with the purpose of Clause 52.06 (Car parking) of the particular provisions in that the design of the car parking area does not create a safe environment for users and provide for easy and efficient use.
   • The proposal does not meet the purpose of Clause 53.18 (Stormwater management) of the particular provisions in that there is a lack of suitable drainage provision adjoining the site to adequately control runoff.
3. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the applicant circulated amended plans in accordance with the Tribunal Practice Note PNPE9. Amongst other matters, these plans altered the proposed roof design/pitch such that it sits lower on the site and made alterations to the pedestrian access within the site. Despite the amended plans, council continues to maintain its opposition to the proposal.
4. There being no objection, I allowed the amended plans to be substituted and these now form those on which my decision is reached.
5. The applicant says the development is consistent with the existing neighbourhood character, being single storey in nature, that the design protects amenity for surrounding residents, and the site location lends itself to a proposal of this nature.
6. No party disputes that the proposed land use is an acceptable one, that will provide a community use in a growing community. The issue in dispute is largely whether the size of the use (for 92 children) and its consequent impacts on the built form scale is appropriate based on the specific neighbourhood character and the policy framework that applies to the site.
7. In setting out my assessment of the issues below, I do not recite all of the relevant material tendered by the parties. I have considered all written submissions, statement of Grounds and evidence, assisted by my inspection.
8. My assessment must be undertaken in the context of the directions of the Mitchell Planning Scheme (the 'Scheme') and the specific evaluation criteria for the matters in which a planning permit is required.
9. I must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Scheme, I have decided to set aside the decision of the responsible authority and direct that a permit be granted.
10. My detailed reasons follow.

1. It is proposed to develop the review site with a childcare centre for 92 children and 19 staff, to operate from 6.30am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday.
2. The existing dwelling on the land will be demolished (no permit required), and a new purpose-built single store, gable-roofed building comprising four internal activity areas, with an external play area of approximately 644 square metres will be constructed. It is proposed to construct a 2.4 metre high acoustic fence around the perimeter of the outdoor play areas and part of the northern boundary of the carpark (tapering down to 1.8 metres).
3. The proposed building will be set back 5 metres from Duke Street, 10 metres from its eastern side boundary, 19.9 metres from its Stanley Street western side boundary and 5.7 metres from its northern boundary. The building has a maximum height of 5.4 metres, and the proposed building site coverage is approximately 34.6%.
4. Twenty one trees are proposed to be removed from the site. Two large canopy trees are proposed to be retained within the site. I say more about these trees later in my decision.
5. The proposal provides for the provision of 20 car parking spaces located within the western part of the site, to be accessed via a new crossover to Duke Street. There is no pedestrian or vehicle access proposed off Stanley Street. As there are no constructed footpaths across both of the site's street frontages, the application proposes the construction of footpaths along Duke and Stanley Streets.
6. The proposal satisfies Clause 52.06 Car parking**.** The review site is located within Category 1 of Table 1 at Clause 52.06-5 which has a requirement of 1 space per employee for a Childcare centre. The proposal requires 19 car parking spaces as 19 staff are proposed. Given 20 spaces are provided, no planning permit is required specific to carparking provision. This is relevant when considering council's desire for indented parking to be provided within the road reserve.

Figure 1: Site Layout Plan Source: Evidence statement of Mr Pagliar

1. The purpose of the General Residential Zone includes to allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.
2. The zone purpose reflects the common circumstance where non-residential uses such as childcare centres or medical centres are commonly located on land zoned for residential purposes. These centres are often located on major or collector roads or on the outskirts of activity centres. Two other childcare centres exist within close proximity of the review site on Stanley and Duke Streets.
3. Provided these non-residential land uses can be respectful of the amenity and character expectations of the residential area, then these uses can be considered to be compatible and acceptable when tested against the purposes of the zone.
4. The proposed use is consistent with the Planning Policy Framework that encourages the consolidation of existing urban areas for the efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, such as public transport and community facilities.
5. I am satisfied that the site is well located with good access to the existing connector road network, and buses on Duke Street. The site has good access to the local shopping precinct and excellent access to schools, community facilities and open spaces. In this way, this is a site where local policy and the Planning Policy Framework would and does direct higher intensity of the use and development than currently exists on site. This is acknowledged in the existing Wallan Structure Plan which includes the site in an area identified for increased intensity.
6. Other features support the use as proposed. The site is relatively large and while some vegetation will be necessarily removed to facilitate the development, other large remnant trees are proposed to be retained which will provide landscape amenity. Aside from built form amenity impacts, the council identifies no other amenity concerns with the proposal. It manages its own carparking demands within the site, and subject to conditions, the hours of operation will not result in amenity impacts to neighbours arising from noise or movement of vehicles.
7. While the site is not directly adjacent or abutting an existing business zone, it is not an overtly commercial use that would result in 'ribboning' of commercial development. It is within walking distance of the nearby Wallan Activity Centre and has a bus route along the front of the site.

1. Turning to the question of character, the Schedule to the General Residential zone contains no specific neighbourhood character objectives. Nor is there any local policy related to neighbourhood character aspirations.
2. Council say that the built form will detract from the character of the area, saying that the extent of the built form (site coverage) is unreasonable in its context. Council says the combined development footprint, including the car parking, play areas and building, will not sit comfortably in relation to the residential dwellings adjacent and nearby the site.
3. The applicant says that the built form of a Childcare centre will inevitably differ from their residential neighbours, and that this is not unreasonable in the context of an area identified for intensification and one so well located with respect to the existing activity centre and anticipated growth in Wallan.
4. They rely on the evidence of Mr Pagliaro on the site's strategic context and response to the limited neighbourhood character objectives in the scheme. Mr Pagliaro considers that the balance between built form and landscaping is well struck.
5. Mr Pagliaro notes that the development is single storey in nature which is consistent with the scale of residential development in the immediate area. He is satisfied that the proposed high acoustic fencing, where required, is acceptable from a neighbourhood character perspective.
6. I am satisfied that the siting, scale and massing of the development is reasonable in its context and consistent with relevant planning scheme provisions.
7. While the proposed building is an education space, and therefore not specifically residential in form, but I am satisfied the overall building presentation is sufficiently respectful of its residential setting.
8. Firstly, there is no consistent built form character in the immediate area. During my site visit I noted that there is a varied mix of dwelling typology and built form, building height, and spacing of buildings. Reflective of the varied periods that surrounding development occurred, there is generally no consistent use of materials, fencing styles and height, front and side boundary setbacks. This is not a homogenous character precinct.
9. I do not agree that the proposed site coverage would be incongruous with the immediate character. Newer built form in the immediate area has adopted a higher site coverage (for example the property to the north) and this will only increase if council's expectations for increased intensity of development in this area (as expressed in the Wallan Structure Plan) is delivered.
10. The building will sit in a spacious setting. It is well setback from all boundaries, leaving space for tree planting. Additional site landscaping, as well as new street trees, will enhance the generally minimally landscaped neighbourhood character.
11. Whilst I understand that the proposed acoustic fencing treatment (with some height) will be visible from vantages, I do not agree that the up to 2.4 metre high walls will be so out of character such as to warrant refusal of the application. In any event, the topography of the site means that the acoustic fencing will have a lower height when viewed from the adjacent residences.
12. The proposed building uses a palette of materials, and the low rising roof form assists in modulating the building in its setting. The overall building height is 5.4 metres which is well within that permitted by the GRZ1. The building design is of a contemporary form that speaks to its purpose while respecting its residential setting.
13. I am satisfied that the built form will sit comfortably within the existing neighbourhood and not appear so out of character such as to warrant refusal of the application.
14. Further, I am satisfied that the landscaping response serves to soften the appearance of the proposed built form. I do not share council's opinion about the existing landscape character in the area. Aside from the larger remnant lots evident in Stanley Street that retain vegetation, I observed that there is minimal canopy tree planting in the area and the general absence of street trees.
15. The proposal retains two large trees that I consider is a positive attribute. I am satisfied that the proposed landscape treatment as shown on Mr Patrick's landscape plan is a substantial improvement on the landscape character evident in the immediate area.
16. While Ms May of Mr Patrick's office supports the removal of one of these retained trees for safety reasons, the application seeks to retain this tree and I support this. Appropriate conditions can ensure that the trees are managed over time to ensure their retention and the safety of children sharing these spaces.
17. The design provides for space for planting of vegetation around the perimeter of the site which will provide an amenity benefit to both surrounding residents and the broader neighbourhood. The extent of front fencing is commensurate with the nature of the use.
18. The landscape plan shows an appropriate level of planting with a mix of trees, and understorey planting. The landscaping will over time soften the built form. I am satisfied that the proposed landscaping regime more than responds to the existing landscape character, it will actually enhance the local landscape character by recruiting more trees than are evident on adjoining and nearby sites.

1. Having regard to noise from the use of the site as a Childcare centre for the hours proposed, subject to the impositions of conditions, I am satisfied that the level of noise generated by the proposal will be reasonable.
2. I have had regard to the acoustic evidence of Mr Barnes. I accept his assessment of noise from children playing has been conducted on a worst case scenario basis for outdoor play (assuming all 92 children are undertaking active play at the same time). Based on his results of the noise modelling of children in the play areas, he predicts that there will be exceedances of the target noise levels where the boundaries are shared with other residential dwellings. These include the three dwellings to the north and one dwelling to the east.
3. Based on this analysis, his opinion is that acoustic fencing/barriers for the play areas will be required to help appropriately mitigate the noise from children's play. These barriers will assist in mitigating airborne noise generated by children's play, however, management practices will still be required to ensure noise levels from children can be managed. These include that:
   • hours of play should only be during the Day Period,
   • there be a separate daily program for both the warmer and cooler months to regulate the total time spent outdoors and indoors,
   • the number of children playing in the outdoor play areas at any one time may be limited to reduce the noise impact,
   • the type of outdoor activities may be programmed to only allow quiet or "passive" activities such as painting, garden exploration, reading, block play or drawing in certain areas of the centre's outdoor play area,
   • crying children should be taken inside the centre and comforted, and
   • the behaviour of children should be monitored and modified as required by adequately trained childcare workers.
4. With respect to noise arising from vehicles accessing the carpark, Mr Barnes' modelling demonstrates the expected levels from the loudest anticipated car noise within the car park area, being car door slamming.
5. His evidence is that there can be a risk to human health by way of sleep disturbance if the noise is generated within the Night Period (11.00pm - 7.00am) and also be indicative of affecting residential amenity if occurring during the Day & Evening Periods.
6. His modelling suggests that there is risk of noise exceedance between the car park area and sensitive receptors, being nearby residential properties, if a suitable acoustic barrier is not implemented. In his view, the exceedances at 1 Stanley Street (the property across Stanley Street to the west) will be mitigated with the existing timber fence on the boundary of 1 Stanley St as well as suitable management controls being implemented; and the exceedances at 4B Stanley Street (the properties to the immediate north) would be managed with the implementation of acoustic fencing.
7. I have been persuaded that the acoustic barriers and noise management regime recommended by Mr Barnes are satisfactory to the task of limiting noise to within reasonable limits. I have reviewed the proposed layout for acoustic barriers, and find the extent of barriers to be reasonable, both in length, height and in position.
8. Subject to the imposition of a Noise Management Plan condition, which is unopposed by the applicant, I accept that noise arising from the children's play area can be managed to acceptable levels. The management regime recommended by Mr Barnes is a reasonable step that could be commonly implemented by staff of the centre.
9. Based on Mr Barnes' evidence, I reject any submission that sleep disturbance from vehicles accessing the carpark will be unreasonable or intolerable. Any impact will only be from approximately 6.15am onward (when staff are likely to arrive), given the centre does not open until 6.30am.
10. Noise impacts arising from patron and staff vehicle noise in the night time period (ie. before 7.00am) will be mitigated with the specified acoustic fencing system, and management measures such as signage, and the endorsement of a Noise Management Plan.

1. Loading/unloading is proposed within the on-site carpark. I accept that delivery vehicles are likely to be smaller in scale and capable of occupying on-site carparking spaces when undertaking deliveries.
2. The Waste Management Plan that accompanies the application suggested that waste collection would occur on-site by a private contractor utilising a waste truck up to 8.8 metres long Medium Rigid Vehicle ('MRV'). This would require the 8.8m MRV to enter the site, utilising six car spaces to turn around on-site. A corrective manoeuvre is then required on the exit movement.
3. Council raises concerns with the number of car spaces required to be vacant to enable waste collection. The evidence of Mr Furness was that this would not be an issue if waste collection is completed outside the operating hours of the centre. Alternatively, he says that waste collection could be collected via a 6.4 metre long x 2.08 metre high waste collection vehicle, in which case only two car spaces are required to be vacant at the time of the collection. If this vehicle is used, he recommends that waste collection is limited to outside the hours of 7-10am and 3-6pm, when parent activity in the carpark is low and car spaces will be available.
4. I agree with council that the submitted Waste Management Plan should be amended to prevent the use of 8.8 metre long MRV waste collection vehicles. The requirement to leave six vacant car spaces to allow for turning within the site makes this an unreasonable proposition. I accept the evidence of Mr Furness that the use of an alternative collection vehicle that is smaller in size will mitigate this impact to an acceptable level.
5. Mr Barnes evidence is that waste collection and deliveries must be conducted in accordance with EPA Publication 1254 'Noise Control Guidelines' and should not occur after 10.00pm, and before 7.00am weekdays or 9.00am all other days.
6. From an acoustic perspective, Mr Barnes does not support waste collections before 7.00am weekdays and 9.00am all other days. I agree. These are sensitive times where sleep disturbance is most likely. Therefore, the Waste Management Plan that will be endorsed under the permit will require conditions that restrict both the size and collection times of waste vehicles. I have adopted Mr Furness's recommendation that waste collection is limited to between 10.00am and 3.00pm Monday to Friday, when parent activity in the carpark is lower and car spaces will be available for the waste vehicle to be able to manoeuvre appropriately.

1. Whilst council's grounds of refusal says that the proposal is potentially unsafe for pedestrians traversing the site, these concerns are largely addressed by the substituted plans that altered the pedestrian access within the site.
2. I am satisfied that the layout of the car park and the location of the building access provides safe passage for parents/carers accessing the centre.
3. More broadly, council's concerns are:
   • the proposal will impact on the current or future function of the road asset.
   • the proposed footpaths along Stanley Street and Duke Street do not connect to the existing network.
   • The one metre level difference between Duke Street and the review site would make indented parking provision on Duke Street challenging.
   • The absence of formal kerb, channel, or adequate underground drainage to manage stormwater runoff along Duke Street.
   • The drop-offs and pick-ups are likely to occur in Stanley Street, causing congestion in a cul-de-sac with no suitable turnaround area.
4. The Wallan Structure Plan (dated December 2015) nominates that Duke Street will have a collector road function to the east of Wellington Street and be a "key local road" further west including past the review site.
5. The Plan identifies a number of traffic and pedestrian enhancements to be undertaken, including;
   • A signalised intersection between Duke Street and Northern Highway/High Street.
   • The Stanley Street is to be a key local road and a 'pedestrian access priority improvement streets -secondary'.
   • That Stanley Street is proposed to extend to Duke Street (similar to the recent extension of Wellington Street).
   • The provision of on road bike lanes along Duke Street.
   • Improved pedestrian infrastructure along Duke Street and Stanley Street.
6. With respect to traffic impacts, the evidence of Mr Furness is that Duke Street carries an average weekday volume of 929 vehicles per day, just west of High Street. His evidence is that Duke Street west of Wellington Street can be compared to the requirements set out in Clause 56 (Residential Subdivision) of the scheme, and under these standards, Duke Street would fall under the category of 'Access Street - Level 2', which has an environmental capacity in the order of 2,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day.
7. Based on this analysis, Duke Street currently operates well below its environmental capacity for a 'Key Local Road' or Collector Road. I agree that the potential increase in vehicle traffic can be readily consumed into the existing on street traffic without any environmental harm.
8. Mr Furness's evidence adopts the rate of 0.8 vehicle trips per childcare place, which in his experience is a conservative figure based on other equivalent centres. On that basis, the childcare centre is expected to generate 74 vehicle trip ends during the commuter peak hours. This equates to approximately 37 vehicle entry and 37 exit manoeuvres in the peak hour (i.e. 1 entry or exit movement every 1-2 minutes).
9. His evidence also adopts a daily traffic generation rate that is highly conservative, assuming that all parents drive their child singularly to the site and pick them up. Accordingly, each childcare place would generate four movements per day, or 368 movements for the 92-place childcare centre.
10. I am satisfied that traffic generated by the proposal will be well within the capacity of the local and arterial road network and will not result in unreasonable amenity loss to existing residents.
11. The evidence of Mr Furness is conservative, in that it assumes the worst case scenario and not those instances where the trip to the centre is multi-purpose (combining with an existing trip already occurring in the area such as a drop off to the nearby school) and therefore not adding to existing traffic volumes.
12. I agree that residents will generally not discern an appreciable difference in traffic volumes in Duke Street, as the overall volume is still quite low and well below its maximum design capacity.
13. The site is approximately 250 metres from the edge of the activity centre and in an area in which council's strategic planning identifies for increased intensification. In this context, some change in traffic intensification, whether it be by increased housing development or non-residential uses such as a childcare centre should be expected. As a question of character and general amenity, I am satisfied that the additional traffic likely to exit the site into the local street network is reasonable and acceptable.
14. Council say that some parents may prefer to park in Stanley Street rather than accessing the site from Duke Street. They say that this street has an unformed cul-de-sac appearance.
15. The applicant says that it is unlikely that vehicle users arriving from the north will prefer to park in Stanley Street as they would be required to traverse this 400 metre long street, which they would then need to return back down to exit the area.
16. I am satisfied that any potential for occasional parking undertaken in Stanley Street is reasonable and acceptable. The likelihood of parents using Stanley Street to park and drop off children is limited. I am satisfied that the convenience of parking on-site, directly adjacent to the childcare centre pedestrian entry, which is accessed off Duke Street, will persuade parties to use this option. I accept that there may be incidental reasons why a particular parent may park in Stanley Street and walk along the Stanley Street footpath through to the facility entry. However, I am satisfied that it is not likely to be common, or result in any substantive or unreasonable amenity impost to residents in Stanley Street.
17. Finally, with respect to footpath and drainage provision, the applicant has offered to construct the full length of footpath to Wellington Street (ie. beyond its own property frontage). This allows full pedestrian connectivity via a formed footpath from the nearby activity centre to the site. The Wallan Structure Plan identifies these footpath connections as being important, and the applicant should be acknowledged for this offer.

1. Conditions were discussed at the hearing and orders provided the opportunity for parties to make further submissions on revised draft conditions arising from the evidence. Any changes to the permit conditions contained in Appendix A of this order reflect those discussions plus further consideration by the Tribunal.
2. While council sought the construction of a full kerb and channel construction as well as indented parking in Duke Street, I do not agree. Firstly, the use provides the statutory rate of carparking within the site. On that basis there is no technical need for the provision of additional indented parking in Duke Street.
3. Secondly, council was unable to confirm the specific details of either road widening or kerb and channel construction it sought in Duke Street. Lacking this level of detail, any permit condition seeking this lacks specificity. I am not persuaded that the use in of itself generates the need for constructed kerb and channel to occur at the applicant's expense. Absent some plan detail from council, I have not imposed the condition as sought by council. I have required that drainage of the site be to council satisfaction.
4. I have modified the draft conditions relating to the preparation of a Tree Management Plan to ensure that a process is established to manage the ongoing safety of the retained trees.

1. In conclusion and having regard to the requirements of Clauses 65 and 71.02, I consider that the proposal is an acceptable outcome, and that when assessed against all relevant policies it does, on balance, achieve a net community benefit. The decision of the responsible authority is set aside and a permit is granted.

Buildings and works for a use in Section 2

1. Before the development starts, plans must be approved and endorsed by the responsible authority. The plans must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, drawn to scale with dimensions, submitted in electronic format and be generally in accordance with the substituted plans, but amended to show:
   1. The retention of trees 17 and 22.
   2. Any amendments to the plans required to facilitate the retention and protection of Trees 17 and 22.
   3. The western boundary fenced to a height of 1.2 metres, reduced to 1 metre in height at the Duke Street intersection in accordance with the Building Regulations 2018.
   4. A 1.5-metre-wide footpath along the Duke Street frontage connecting though to Wellington Street in accordance with Condition 22.
   5. A 1.5-metre-wide footpath along the Stanley Street frontage in accordance with Condition 23.
   6. The provision of two street trees

1. The layout of the use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered from the layout on the approved and endorsed plans without the written consent of the responsible authority.

1. The use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected, though the:

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

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

(c) emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, reflection or glare, steam, soot, ash, dust, wastewater, waste products, grit, or oil; or

(d) presence of vermin;

1. Before the use starts, a Car Parking Management Plan must be submitted to the satisfaction of the responsible authority which outlines the following:

(a) Parking allocations for staff, visitors and service vehicles.

(b) Traffic flow and safety including signage and line markings to guide vehicles and pedestrians, and safe pedestrian routes and crossings within the car park.

(c) Operational procedures including instructions for parents and staff on parking procedures, and clear communication channels for addressing parking related issues. The instructions for parents must emphasise that access to the site and drop-offs/pickups must be from Duke Street and parents should not drop off/pick up children from Stanley Street.

(d) Monitoring of parking usage and effectiveness of the plan, and maintenance of parking infrastructure including line markings and signage.

1. Car parking management must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the approved and endorsed Car Parking Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. External lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. No external sound amplification equipment or loudspeakers may be used for the purpose of announcements, broadcasts, playing of music or similar purpose.

1. All security alarms or similar devices installed on the land must be of a silent type in accordance with any current standard published by Standards Australia International Limited and be connected to a security service to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. All pipes, fixtures, fittings vents, plant and equipment servicing any building on the site (excluding storm water down pipes, guttering and rainheads) must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. No plant, equipment, services or architectural features other than those shown on the approved plans are permitted above the roof level of the building(s).

1. At all times noise levels emanating from the land must comply with the requirements of the Environment Protection Act 2017 and the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (as amended from time to time) as measured in accordance with the Noise Protocol to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Noise Protocol means the Noise limit and assessment protocol for the control of noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises and entertainment venues, published by the Environment Protection Authority on its website, as in force from time to time.

1. Before the use starts, acoustic fencing must be erected to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. All the boundary fencing must be constructed solely at the expense of the applicant.
2. The acoustic fencing must be designed by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer and constructed in accordance with the requirements of Condition 12, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Except with the prior written consent of the responsible authority, the maximum number of children cared for in the centre must not exceed 92 at any one time.

1. Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the use may operate only between the hours of:
   • Monday to Friday 6.30am to 6.30pm.
   • Closed on weekends and public holidays.

1. Prior to the commencement of the use, a revised Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must be generally in accordance with the requirements of the Waste Management Plan prepared by O'Brien Traffic, version 25893 WMP, dated 20 June 2024 must modified to provide:

(a) Waste collection to be undertaken by vehicles a maximum 6.4 metre long x 2.08 metre high and must only attend the site between the hours of 10.00am-3.00pm Monday to Friday.

1. All waste and recyclables must be stored in and collected from the area set aside for this purpose as shown on the endorsed plans. This area must be graded, drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Before the use starts, a vehicle crossing to industrial standard must be constructed in Duke Street in accordance with Council's adopted design manual and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. Before the use starts, unless agreed to in writing by the responsible authority, onsite car parking designed in accordance with AS/NZS2890.1:2004 and AS/NZS2890.6:2004 must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Before the use starts, a minimum 1.5-metre-wide concrete footpath must be constructed along the Duke Street frontage and along Duke Street so that it connects to the footpath in Wellington Street, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. Before the use starts, a minimum 1.5-metre-wide concrete footpath must be constructed along the Stanley Street frontage, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Before the use starts, drainage works at no cost to Council, must be constructed between the proposed development and the Council nominated point of discharge, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. Before the use starts, the site must be connected to an underground drainage system including an on-site detention system to control flows to pre-development levels and treat stormwater wholly within the boundaries of the subject land, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Before the commencement of works, detailed construction plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The construction plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plans must include:

(a) Crossover details.

(b) Turning movements demonstrating forward motion ingress and egress.

(c) Signage and line-marking.

(d) Driveway construction and drainage details including driveway grades and indication of fall.

(e) Underground drainage details, overland flow path and supporting calculations.

(f) Fencing details.

(g) All drainage works must be designed to meet the following current best practice performance objectives for stormwater quality as contained in the Urban Stormwater - Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines (1999) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

1. Prior to the building being occupied, all works shown on the approved construction plans must be constructed or carried out in accordance with the plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the commencement of works, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Construction Management Plan must include details of:

(a) Working hours.

(b) Details of site environmental controls.

(c) Methods to contain sediment, dust, spillages, mud and debris within the subject land, and the method and frequency of clean up procedures.

(d) A traffic management plan for both vehicle and pedestrian movements including working hours and after-hours signage.

(e) A liaison officer to contact by residents and the Responsible Authority in the event of relevant enquiries or problems experienced with construction activity.

(f) Details of stockpile areas, other proposed storage and a site office.

1. Before the development is occupied, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, all reinstatement works must be completed, and an Asset Protection Permit must be finalised to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The stormwater drainage system on the land must be designed such that stormwater runoff exiting the land complies with the current best practice performance objectives for stormwater quality, in the Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines (Victorian Stormwater Committee, 1999).

1. Before the use starts, the areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and bicycles, and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be**:**

(a) constructed

(b) properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans

(c) surfaced with an all-weather-seal coat

(d) drained

(e) line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes

(f) clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and driveways

At all times car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these purposes.

Once constructed, these areas must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. No fewer than twenty (20) car spaces must be provided on the land.

1. A minimum of one (1) car space must be provided for the exclusive use of disabled persons.
2. The dimensions and layout of the car space_(s)_ must be in accordance with Australian Standard AS2890.6-2009 (Accessible (Disabled) Car Parking Requirements) and the Building Code of Australia.

1. Before the use starts, protective kerbs to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. The loading and unloading of goods from vehicles must only be carried out on the land and must not disrupt the circulation and parking of vehicles on the land, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Before the use starts, signs must be provided directing staff to the areas set aside for staff car parking to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The area of each sign must not exceed 0.3 square metres.

At all times, the signs must be located and maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Before the commencement of any landscaping works, detailed Landscape Plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Detailed Landscape Plans must be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape designer and must include

(a) Plant schedule including botanical name, container size, mature height and width and total quantities.

(b) Planting details.

(c) Relevant specifications.

(d) Reference the relevant Australian Standards.

(e) Nominate all surfaces, finishes and edge treatments.

(f) Be accurately scaled to show appropriate detail.

(g) Nominate a scale bar and widths of key features to assist in digital assessment of the plans.

(h) To ensure canopy closure and suppress weeds, garden bed species should be spaced at 75% of the mature width of the plant.

(i) In line with Council's Urban Forest Strategy 2023, have a provision for a minimum of 1 shade tree for every 5 parking bays, in garden beds at least 2m wide.

(j) The locations of any trees to be retained both on site and adjacent to the site, including details of the species, notional root zones, tree protection measures and tree sizes, where required.

(k) Existing nature strip trees are to be identified on the plans and protected during all construction activity. Include a reference to the following Australian Standard: AS4970:2025 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites.

(l) Add a notation to the Landscape Plan that the play space is to meet AS 4685.0:2017, Playground equipment and surfacing - Part 0: Development, installation, inspection, maintenance, and operation.

When approved, the landscape plan will form part of the permit.

1. Before the development is occupied, the landscaping shown on the approved landscape plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. At all times the landscaping shown on the approved landscape plan must be maintained (including the replacement of any dead, diseased or damaged plants) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Once the crossover has been constructed, nominate two (2) indicative street trees on Duke Street on the Landscape Plan. A street tree fee will be payable for Council to plant street trees on the nature strip. The tree species will be determined by Council to enhance the existing or future streetscape masterplan. Payment of the street tree fee is required prior to commencement of works.
2. Prior to removal of any public/Council trees, a tree replacement or Amenity value must be paid to the responsible authority, in line with Council's Urban Tree Management Policy to account for the loss of canopy and amenity to the community. Payment is required prior to commencement of works.

1. Prior to the commencement of any demolition or construction works on the land, a project arborist must be appointed by the applicant or builder. The project arborist must have a minimum Diploma qualification in arboriculture.
2. Prior to the commencement of any building and or demolition works on the land, a Notional Root Zone (NRZ) must be established and maintained on the subject land during and until completion of all buildings and works including landscaping, around the two trees to be retained on-site. Notional Root Zone protection measures are to be established in accordance with Australian Standard 4970: 2025 Protection of Trees on Development Sites to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
3. Before the commencement of any building or demolition works on the land, the project arborist must ensure that tree protection measures are established on the land and nature strip, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Tree Management Plan shall be prepared and endorsed by the Responsible Authority and implemented by the site owner/occupier in relation to the on-going maintenance of the retained trees. The Plan must address the following matters:

(a) Pre-construction site preparation, including:

1. Dead wooding of the tree's canopy;
2. Trunk, branch and ground protection;
3. The location of servicing.

(b) On-going maintenance, including:

1. Climbing inspections by a suitably qualified arborist once every two years to identify any faults in the branch structure.
2. On-going inspections to be carried out by staff of those external areas to be accessed by children immediately before those areas are accessed in order to locate, remove and dispose of any fallen branches.
3. The site occupier accepts the responsibility of and will remain at all times responsible for the on-going inspection and maintenance of the tree and the removal and disposal of branches.

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

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

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

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

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the Responsible Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

[1] The submissions and evidence of the parties, any supporting exhibits provided to 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.