The behaviour of children should be monitored by staff and act immediately to the following:

• Crying babies and/or children should be taken into the centre and comforted.
• Screaming or high pitched squealing from children should be discouraged.

Carers should be educated to control the level of their voice while outside.

External doors to playrooms should not be held open.

The centre should develop an indoor/outdoor program.

Staff should offer indoor activities during outdoor play times so that children have the option of playing inside or outside. This will help minimise the total number of children outside at any one time.

Group singing with amplified music should be conducted indoors.

1. He opposes the use of fencing and screens that would further reduce these noise levels due to the height of screening. He says that this would require screens of 3.5 metres or more. He considers such screens to be impractical given their visual impact from outside the site plus their impact on the play areas themselves.
2. To the contrary, the council relies on the Association of Australasian Acoustical Consultants Guideline for Child Care Centre Acoustic Assessment. This recommends a maximum increase of 5 dB(A) above the average daytime background level where outdoor areas are used for more than two hours per day.
3. This contest over noise control has occurred before, in identical or very similar terms. In PHHH Investments[5], the Tribunal found that limiting noise levels to within the average daytime background level plus 10 dB(A) without limiting outdoor play to two hours per day was an acceptable outcome. Similarly, the provision of acoustic barriers of 2 or 2.1 metres around the perimeter of upper floor outdoor play areas was found to be acceptable in Tamoe Investments[6] and Doranit[7].
4. Further to this, the Tribunal in Tamoe Investments stated that:

[53] The AAAC Guideline is not a reference document in the Scheme and is not an adopted policy of Council. This limits the weight I give to this document.

1. Separately, the Tribunal in Doranit stated that:

[57] I give weight to the fact that this is not the first child care centre to rely on acoustic screening to mitigate noise, and the screening is based on noise levels that are known and acoustic measures that are proven. I am persuaded that there is a high probability that the acoustic screening will be effective and be likely to reduce the noise experienced in nearby dwellings to acceptable levels.

1. I agree with these findings and consider they are relevant to this proposal. While these child care centres are in different locations, I am satisfied that the specific noise testing of the proposed site combined with screening outcomes that are similar to those above, makes this proposal acceptable in terms of the control of noise emanating from children playing.
2. On a separate issue, I do not agree with Mr Begelhole regarding the effectiveness of acoustic fencing. In my experience, the use of fencing as shown in Appendix 5 of Mr Lui's evidence, does mitigate the volume of noise emanating from a site.
3. With regard to other noise sources, Mr Lui's evidence satisfies me that locating air conditioning plant on the flat roofed section of the building to the west of the lift core would be satisfactory. I will require this by a condition of the permit.
4. With regard to the noise from vehicle movements associated with the site, I am satisfied that the hours of operation being 7.00am-6.30pm weekdays in combination with the acoustic fencing on the southern and eastern boundary, will limit the amenity impact of this noise to a satisfactory degree.

The visual impact of the proposed building and acoustic screens

1. The amenity impact of the proposed building and acoustic screens is limited to the immediately abutting properties. All other aspects of the appearance of the building and screens have been addressed earlier.
2. I find the visual impact of the building's height is acceptable. While the ridge of the roof is over 10 metres high, it is setback 11 metres from the south boundary and 13.8 metres from the east boundary. This distance mitigates the sense of the building's scale being overwhelming or unpleasant when viewed from the adjoining properties.
3. The impact of the screens must be assessed in the context of each adjoining property. To the south, a 40 metre length of screening is proposed parallel to 62 Wonga Road, which contains three single storey dwellings. The screen is setback 3 metres from the shared boundary. As the land falls from Wonga Road to the east boundary, the screen is 5.2 metres above natural ground level at its western end, and is 8.2 metres above natural ground level at its eastern end.
4. The applicant relies on a number of matters to say this is acceptable. Mr Bastone's evidence is that the use of a blend of spaced timber battens and fluted glass reduces the visual impact of the screen's length. He also relies on the broader principles that child care centres are an acceptable form of development in residential areas, and that they are not expected to replicate the appearance or form of the dwellings that they sit amongst. He also relies on the fact that the screens sit well within the varied ResCode standard for side setbacks for new development.
5. Apart from this, reliance is placed on the layout of 62 Wonga Road. A shared driveway runs along the shared boundary and a 4 metre high hedge of pittosporums sits between the driveway and the boundary fence. 1/62 and 2/62 Wonga Road are setback 8 and 7 metres respectively from the shared boundary, while 3/62 Wonga Road has its garage wall on the boundary.
6. Mr Begelhole contests this. He believes that the ground floor wall on the shared boundary will damage the row of pittosporums along his property. He says that this will reduce his amenity, and that of his neighbours.
7. I find that the visual impact of the screen is acceptable along this boundary. 1/62 Wonga Road sits forward of all but the first three metres of the screen with its direct aspect over the ground level playground. This siting, combined with the features outlined above, means that this dwelling not unreasonably affected by the building's visual presence.
8. 2/62 Wonga Road is directly opposite the proposal yet I am satisfied that the distance between that dwelling and the proposal combined with the driveway, the retention of the pittosporum hedge and the detailing of the outdoor play area screens sufficiently ensures their visual amenity. On this point, I am satisfied that the pittosporum hedge can be reasonably retained despite the construction of a wall on the boundary.
9. I find that the visual amenity of 3/62 Wonga Road is reasonably retained despite the proposal. This dwelling sits low on its site and faces the turning area for its garage and the garage of Dwelling 2. Its secluded private open space is in the opposite corner of its site and is away from the proposal.
10. With regard to 2 Major Street, I find that the proposed five metre setback of the upper floor play areas plus the proposed screening vegetation along the eastern boundary is an acceptable response to these residents' visual amenity. I consider that the five metre setback is a reasonable response to the height of the second floor playroom. I consider that the planting of new trees along the eastern boundary is critical to the success of this interface. While I accept the council's submission that there is insufficient detail of this planting area, I am satisfied by Mr Galbraith's evidence that the space is sufficient for the planting of two 11 metre high trees and that detail of this planting area can be provided by way of a condition on the permit.

ARE THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC AND PARKING ARRANGEMENTS SATISFACTORY?

1. All respondents contend that the proposal's traffic and parking arrangements are not satisfactory. They contend that the combination of congestion in the car park and the driveway's proximity to Wonga Road will result in dangerous situations at this intersection. They also contend that entering Wonga Road from side streets in this area is difficult, and that the proposal will unreasonably increase this difficulty. They also say that parents with young children cannot safely park on Wonga Road, and that additional traffic movements along Major Street will unreasonably impact on the street's amenity.
2. The applicant relies on Ms Dunstan's evidence in these matters. She says that the car park can accommodate the needs of staff and parents of children attending the centre. Using conservative estimates based on empirical evidence of other centres, she estimates that the centre is expected to generate up to 79 vehicle trip ends (in the order of 40 arrival trips and 40 departure trips during the commuter peak hours of 8am-9am and 5pm-6pm. She expects that all vehicles at this time can use the on-site parking spaces given that each of the twelve spaces allocated for parents will turn over a number of times during this hour.
3. With regard to entering Major Street from Wonga Road and vice versa, she contends that this intersection has ample spare capacity to accommodate the proposed number of vehicles. Based on this evidence, and her expectations of how the car park will be used, she is satisfied that no unreasonable queuing will occur on either street.
4. With regard to the broader question of the volume of traffic on Wonga Road, she accepts that city bound queueing occurs in the morning peaks. She expects that vehicles turning into or out of Major Street would need to rely on 'courtesy gaps' yet considers that this is acceptable.
5. Separately, she contends that vehicle movements associated with the proposal are unlikely to unreasonably interfere with vehicle movements from Hamilton Drive (on the opposite side of Wonga Road).
6. After due consideration, I am persuaded by Ms Dunstan's evidence. I accept her evidence that the vehicles of parents dropping children at the centre will 'turn over' in the manner she describes. I also accept her evidence that the intersection has spare capacity for vehicles turning into or out of Major Street. The combined effect of this evidence diminishes many of the respondents' concerns about congestion at this intersection. I agree that the child care centre's driveway is close to the intersection and would be problematic if congestion was likely to occur. However, I am persuaded that this will not occur on a regular basis. I am also persuaded that most parents will park on site and that impacts on the amenity and convenience of Major Street will be limited.
7. It is clear that vehicles queue on Wonga Road during the morning peak hour, yet I accept that vehicles associated with the child care centre will be able to satisfactorily access Major Street during these times. While vehicles associated with the centre will add to the existing traffic volumes, I am satisfied that these additional 40 vehicles will not significantly alter the existing situation. For this reason, combined with the alignments of Major Street and Hamilton Drive, I am satisfied that approving this centre will not discernibly add to the current difficulty in exiting Hamilton Drive during the morning peak.
8. Separately, the council has not persuaded me that vehicle movements associated with this centre will cause an unreasonable degree of 'rat running' through local streets. Ms Dunstan's evidence persuades me that most parents will return to Wonga Road after dropping off or picking up their children. While some parents may use local streets, including those travelling to nearby schools to pick up siblings, I find that this is not a significant issue.

1. The draft conditions circulated by the council were discussed at the hearing. I have amended these conditions to reflect my reasons. Further to this, I have modified what appear to be standard conditions so that they relate particularly to this proposal. I consider that the council should do this on all occasions to avoid irrelevant or unnecessary requirements. These waste time and effort for applicants and council officers alike and should be avoided at all times.
2. In condition 1, I have deleted the requirement for all trees to be retained on site to be numbered, with their structural root zone and tree protection zone shown, as this is already shown on Plan TP06. I have added the sub-condition recommended by Mr Bastone regarding the identification of screens, and have added Mr Galbraith's recommendation regarding the eastern edge of the car park. By doing so, I have deleted the requirement for the incorporation of porous pavement in the lower carpark. To address matters raised by the council, I have required a pier and beam retaining wall along the eastern boundary to ensure new tree planting in this setback has access to natural ground.
3. Also in relation to condition 1, I am satisfied that Condition 1f) and an amended Condition 14 provide the Tree Management measures that Mr Galbraith recommends. Condition 1f) requires the plans to show impact construction measures for buildings and works in Tree Protection Zones. It requires that these impacts are identified in a construction impact assessment undertaken by a qualified arborist. The amended Condition 14 requiring all such approved works to be undertaken under the supervision of a suitably qualified arborist and in accordance with any requirements of the Responsible Authority.
4. I have deleted the conditions relating to vehicle crossings as such crossings are subject to separate regulations.
5. I have altered the condition requiring an amended landscape plan by referring to the landscape plans by Botanical Traditions that form part of the substituted plans, as I am satisfied by the proposed plans. Accordingly I have deleted the requirement for all species selected to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. I have deleted the requirement to show the trees to be removed on this plan, as I see no relevance in showing the trees to be removed on a plan that serves to show the future landscaping of the site. Apart from this, I note that the trees to be removed are listed on plan PP01. Finally, I have deleted the reference to the construction impact assessment called for by condition 1, as I find this assessment related particularly to the construction of the building.
7. I have deleted requirements from the Waste Management Plan that I consider relate to larger buildings with multiple, separate residences or tenancies.
8. I have amended the condition requiring acoustic treatments in accordance with Mr Lui's recommendations on the suggestion of Mr Carey by identifying the anticipated maximum dB(A) at the adjacent properties.
9. I have deleted the requirement for the applicant to carry out acoustic testing demonstrating that the use complies with the prescribed noise attenuation standards of this permit, as I accept Mr Lui's evidence. I accept these are modelled noise levels yet was persuaded by his evidence that this modelling has yielded satisfactory results at other child care centres that he has been involved with.
10. I have deleted the condition relating to the general amenity of the area as I find that matters relating to the transportation of goods, the appearance of the building, the emission of noise, and the management of waste water and waste products are addressed by other conditions on the permit.

1. Concerns were raised about the appropriateness of such signage in a residential area. I do not agree with these concerns. I find that the proposed signage is appropriate for its setting and is well integrated with the proposed building.

1. For the reasons outlined above, the decision of the responsible authority has been set aside and a permit will issue.

• Use and development of land for a child care centre in the General Residential Zone;
• Removal of vegetation under the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 4; and
• Business Identification signage.

1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Perkins Architects drawing numbers TP00, TP01, TP02, TP03, TP04A, TP05, TP06A, TP07A, TP08A, TP09A, TP10, TP11, and TP12A dated 20 December 2016, with plans denoted A dated 26 October 2017, but modified to show:
   • (a) Retention of the 11 metre high Lilly Pilly near the Major Street frontage, with consequent revisions to the ground and first floor of the flat roofed two storey element of the building, and with no alterations to the setbacks of the building and outdoor play areas on the southern or eastern interfaces.
   • (b) The siting of air conditioning plant on the flat roofed section of the building to the west of the lift core.
   • (c) Vehicle crossover to be removed and replaced, and widened to 6.4m to align with the width of the accessway.
   • (d) Construction of the footpath along Major Street to terminate at the crossover of 2 Major Street.
   • (e) Reduction in the height of the acoustic timber paling fence along the eastern boundary to 1800mm above the floor level of the under croft parking area.
   • (f) Corrections to TP08 to correctly number the screening to the north of Playroom 6 as Timber Batten Screen - Max. 25% transparency instead of Timber Batten Screen, and to correctly number the screening to the south of Playroom 6 as semi-translucent screen - Max 25% transparency, and Timber Batten Screen - Max. 25% transparency.
   • (g) Provision of a pier and beam system of foundation type retaining walls along the eastern edge of the car park unless non-root destructive exploratory trenching under arboricultural supervision reveals that there are no roots of significance to protect.
   • (h) Provision of a pier and beam system of foundation type retaining walls along the eastern title boundary to secure access to natural ground for future tree planting between the eastern edge of the car park and the eastern title boundary.
   • (i) Low impact construction measures to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority wherever buildings, pavements or services are located within the Tree Protection Zone of any retained tree. This must be demonstrated via a construction impact assessment undertaken by a qualified arborist and in accordance with the Australian Standards for the Protection of Trees on Development Sites AS 4970 -2009); and include cross sectional drawings to show root sensitive construction methods which are readily transferable to construction plans.

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Maximum number of children at the child care centre

1. No more than 99 children shall be on the premises at any one time without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. The use, excluding cleaning, maintenance and administrative tasks, may only operate between 7.00am-6.30pm Monday to Friday. The use is not permitted to operate at any time on a Saturday or Sunday.

1. Before any building or works start, construction plans for all parking areas and access lanes must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The construction plans must be consistent with the endorsed site layout, development plans and landscaping plans.

1. Before the use starts, the area set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the approved plan must be:
   • (a) surfaced with a durable, all-weather seal; and
   • (b) drained to the nominated legal point of discharge;

To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before any building or works start, drainage plans including calculations prepared by a suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Drainage Plans must:
   • (a) Show all drainage works associated with the development including any drainage works required beyond the boundaries of the land;
   • (b) Show the nominated legal point of discharge;
   • (c) Convey stormwater runoff by means of underground drains to the nominated legal point of discharge.
   • (d) Prevent overland flows from having a detrimental effect on the environment or adjoining properties;
   • (e) Limit the permissible Site Discharge (PSD) to the equivalent of a 35% impervious site coverage, or the pre-developed discharge rate, if it is less than 35% impervious site coverage, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; and
   • (f) Provide appropriate stormwater detention storage for a 20 Year ARI storm event to limit the maximum discharge rate to the PSD;

1. Before the development is occupied, the drainage and associated works shown on the Drainage Plans must be constructed in accordance with those plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Within 14 days of the completion of the works, certification by a suitably qualified engineer must be submitted to the Responsible Authority certifying that works have been completed in accordance with the Drainage Plans.

1. During the construction of the development, methods to control sediment laden runoff as described under 'Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines for Urban Stormwater' or similar must be implemented and used to minimise sediment laden runoff and stormwater pollution from leaving the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

1. Before the development starts, a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. It is to be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Botanical Traditions drawing numbers LC01, LC02, PP01, PP02 and PP03 dated 25 October 2017 but modified to show:
   • (a) The accurate location of retained canopy trees on the land and within 5m of the property boundary, with each tree identified by species and corresponding ID number as provided in the Arborist Report by Galbraith and Associates (2017);
   • (b) For each tree shown to be retained on the land or on neighbouring land, a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) and Structural Root Zone (SRZ), with these zones being in accordance with the Australian Standard for Protection of Trees on Development Sites (AS4970-2009).
   • (c) Tree Protection Notes which specify tree protection and tree management actions to be applied for retained trees. These notes should satisfy the Australian Standard for Protection of Trees on Development Sites (AS4970-2009) and clearly address.
     • (i) Actions required prior to commencement of other development works addressing, among other things, the establishment of tree protection fencing and establishment of other root zone protection where access is to be taken over tree protection zones.
     • (ii) Actions required throughout the practical development stages addressing, among other things, the temporary realignment of tree protection fencing as may be required from time to time to allow works which have otherwise been endorsed by a qualified arborist.
     • (iii) Actions required following practical completion of development works, including, but not limited to, remedial pruning, soil amelioration, ongoing monitoring and reactive maintenance of trees.
   • (d) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways including cross sectional drawings where they may impact TPZs of retained trees; or where low impact pavement is required to improve soil volumes for planted canopy trees (ie carpark area).
   • (e) Pathways may only be of impervious/sealed pavement where detailed on approved paving plans and drained in accordance with an approved drainage plan.

1. Before the use starts the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

1. Before the development (including demolition and any site works) starts, tree protection fencing must be erected around all trees to be retained (or that have their tree protection zone entering the site) to define a 'Tree Protection Zone'. The fence must be constructed of star pickets and chain mesh or similar to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The tree protection fence must remain in place until construction is completed. During the construction of the development, the ground surface of the Tree Protection Zone must be covered by a 100 mm deep layer of mulch and watered regularly to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the following must not occur within the Tree Protection Zone as shown on the landscape and other relevant plans:
   • (a) Vehicular or pedestrian access;
   • (b) Trenching or soil excavation;
   • (c) Storage or dumping of materials, tools, equipment or waste

To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

All approved works within Tree Protection Zones must be undertaken under the supervision of a suitably qualified arborist and in accordance with any requirements of the Responsible Authority.

Prior to the removal of the street tree, an amenity value must be paid to Council's Tree and Park Maintenance Team to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the development starts, three copies of a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the CMP will form part of the permit and must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The CMP must include, but not be limited to, the following:
   • (a) details of hours of demolition and construction including deliveries;
   • (b) details of the construction program;
   • (c) Traffic Management details;
   • (d) methods to contain dust, dirt and mud within land, and the method and frequency of clean up procedures;
   • (e) details of facilities on the land for vehicle washing;
   • (f) protection measures for features of the land to be retained including vegetation, retaining walls, buildings, other structures and pathways;
   • (g) details of delivery and unloading points and expected frequency;
   • (h) details of a liaison officer for contact by residents and the Responsible Authority in the event queries or problems are experienced;
   • (i) details of the movement of construction vehicles to and from the land to avoid traffic hazards in and around the land;
   • (j) details of parking facilities for construction workers (including any builder/contractor parking permits issued by Council);
   • (k) measures to minimise the impact of construction vehicles arriving at and departing from the land;
   • (l) an outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, and anticipated disruptions to local services;
   • (m) the processes to be adopted for the separation, re-use and recycling of demolition materials;
   • (n) the measures for prevention of the unintended movement of building waste and hazardous materials and other pollutants on or off the land, whether by air, water or other means;
   • (o) the measures to minimise the amount of waste construction materials; the provision for the recycling of demolition and waste materials; and the return of waste materials to the supplier (where the supplier has a program of reuse or recycling);
   • (p) the measures to minimise noise and other amenity impacts from mechanical equipment and demolition/construction activities, especially outside of daytime hours;
   • (q) the provision of adequate environmental awareness training for all contractors and sub-contractors on the land; and
   • (r) measures to protect the stormwater drainage system so that no solid waste, sediment, sand, soil, clay or stones from the land enters the stormwater drainage system.

1. Before the development starts, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the WMP will form part of the permit and must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The WMP must include, but not be limited to, the following:
   • (a) calculations showing that the occupiers will be sufficiently catered for with the proposed number of garbage, recycling and where required; garden organic bins;
   • (b) details of the size and location for the storage of general wastes and recyclables on the ground/basement floor and details of screening from view;
   • (c) specification of waste collection point (e.g. on-site or nature strip collection) and where the waste collection vehicle will park;
   • (d) a plan showing that the storage area is sufficient to cater for the number of bins, which must include the option for Council collection;
   • (e) If opting for Council collection:
     • (i) calculations showing there is adequate space on the nature strip to present bins collection;
     • (ii) calculations showing that bin transfer grade does not exceed 1:14;
     • (iii) consideration given to minimising the transfer distance from the dwellings to kerbside;
   • (f) provision of a risk and hazard analysis to ensure potential risks to both residents and waste collectors are minimised;
   • (g) details of the size and location for the storage of recyclables on each floor;
   • (h) management measures for the bin storage area(s) to address cleaning and maintenance, prevention of vermin, lighting safety signage considerations and other relevant matters;
   • (i) an assessment of the ease of waste disposal for staff so as to not disadvantage recycling;
   • (j) a plan for the ongoing provision of education for staff on how to use the proposed waste disposal system; and
   • (k) details of private contractor options, if applicable, detailing the methods of collection with regard to land and road network constraints and the potential requirement to manoeuvre garbage trucks, including a collection plan approved by the proposed collection agencies that meets Council's Waste Management Plan.

1. Deliveries to and from the site (including waste collection) must only take place between 7.00am and 7.00pm Monday to Friday to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. Any external lighting must be installed and maintained so as to avoid distracting passing motorists or causing nuisance to the area, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. 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 device, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3. No external sound amplification equipment or loudspeakers are to be used for the purpose of announcement, broadcast, playing of music or similar purpose, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Acoustic treatments outlined in the Acoustic Report No. DL1500-2, prepared by Acoustic Control dated 4 December 2017 must be implemented prior to the use commencing to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to achieve noise levels at any residential property not exceeding 38 dB(A) to the south of the dwelling at 2 Major Street, 42 dB(A) to the west of the dwelling at 2 Major Street, 42 dB(A) to the south of the dwelling at 1 Major Street, 45 dB(A) to the west of the dwelling at 66 Wonga Road, 47 dB(A) to the north of the dwelling at 1/62 Wonga Road, 48 dB(A) to the north of the dwelling at 2/62 Wonga Road, 45 dB(A) to the north of the dwelling at 3/62 Wonga Road, 47 dB(A) to the east of the dwelling at 1 Hamilton Drive, and 49 dB(A) to the east of the dwelling at 2 Hamilton Drive, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. Prior to the use commencing, a Noise Management Plan for the centre must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including but not limited to the following:
   • Noise levels from the centre shall at all times be in accordance with the State Environment Protection Policy N-1 and N-2.
   • Management and staff will take all complaints by neighbours very seriously and will endeavour to respond to any concerns in a timely and positive manner.

• The behaviour of children should be monitored by staff and act immediately to the following:
  • Crying babies and/or children should be taken into the centre and comforted.
  • Screaming or high pitched squealing from children should be discouraged.
• Carers should be educated to control the level of their voice while outside.
• External doors to playrooms should not be held open.
• The centre should develop an indoor/outdoor program.
• Staff should offer indoor activities during outdoor play times so that children have the option of playing inside or outside. This will help minimise the total number of children outside at any one time.
• Group singing with amplified music should be conducted indoors.
• No amplified music outdoors.

1. Externally mounted mechanical plant must be located on the flat roofed section of the building to the west of the lift core and be screened to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
   • (a) The development is not started within two years of the issued date of this permit.
   • (b) The development is not completed within four years of the issued date of this permit.
   • (c) The use is not commenced within five years of the issued date of this permit.

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 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.

[2] Charbrow Pty Ltd v Maroondah CC [2016] VCAT 724

[3] At paragraphs 2 i) and ii) and 21 of this decision.

[4] Rob Galbraith, Statement of Evidence on Arboricultural Issues, Page 3.

[5] PHHH Investments Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2015] VCAT 922

[6] Tamoe Investments Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2015] VCAT 719

[7] Doranit Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2015] VCAT 201