Re Applications for Review P1663/2004 and P1531/

n The decision of the Responsible Authority is upheld with respect to Application for Review P1531/2004 but varied by deleting or varying certain conditions and including additional conditions

n The decision of the Responsible Authority is varied in relation to Application for Review P1663/2004.

The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a permit subject to the conditions and in accordance with the direction set out below.

The Responsible Authority is directed under the provisions of Section 85(1)(b) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to issue a permit which allows the operation of a service station on the land at 192 Whitehorse Road, Balwyn, in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the conditions contained in Council's Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit No. PP03/00876 issued by the Responsible Authority on the 21 May 2004 but modified as follows

- A new condition to be included, to read: "Prior to commencement of the use, a lighting report demonstrating compliance with AS8242 is to be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority"

- New sub-sections to be included in Clause 1, to read

à "an acoustic fence of minimum height 2.0m above the service station paving and not less than 1.6m above the adjoining land to the south, to be located as indicated on the plans submitted by Burston Acoustic Group to the Tribunal and overdrawn on the drawing prepared by tRg The Retail Group and labelled TP01."

à "the location and purpose of all external plant and showing all compressors positioned within the proposed building.

- A new condition to be included: "The acoustic barrier shown on the approved plans to be constructed of overlapping 25mm thick treated pine palings with covering battens having a superficial weight of at least 12Kg/m2 and to be free of all gaps between planks and at the plinth. The final design and specification to be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Mr. Graham Peake of Counsel, instructed by Malleson Stephen Jaques. He called, as expert witnesses:

n Mr. E. Mensforth, traffic engineer, of Grogan Richards Consulting Engineers

Mr. P Connor, of Counsel, instructed by Hardham, Dalton and Sundberg. He called, as witness, Mr. Richardson of Carroll & Richardson Pty Ltd.

1 This matter deals with two related applications for review:

P1531 being an application under Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) to review a decision to grant a permit to use and develop land for a service station.

P1663/2004 being an application under Section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) to review conditions in a permit to use and develop land for a service station. The conditions are:

n No. 13, relating to limitations on the hours of operation of the service station so that the service station could not operate during late night periods, and

n No. 27, which relates to the hours during which the signs may be illuminated and reflects the permitted hours of operation of the service station.

2 At the commencement of the hearing, Mr. Connor asked the Tribunal to amend the name of the applicant for review in respect of the application for review P1531/2004. The application for review was lodged in the name of Hardham, Dalton & Sundberg Solicitors. However, in Council's list of objectors to the permit application, this firm is identified as acting on behalf of Carroll & Richardson Pty Ltd, not as an objector per se.

4 I therefore directed that pursuant to the provisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the name of the applicant for review in this matter is amended to Carroll & Richardson Pty Ltd.

5 The site is situated on the southern side of Whitehorse Road, Balwyn, abutting the western side Jersey Street, a street that is generally residential in character other than for the subject land. The site is rectangular in shape, with dimensions of about 46m frontage to Whitehorse Road, a depth of about 31m and an area of 1440m2.

6 The site has a fall from east to west across the frontage and rises slightly towards the rear.

7 The site has previously been used for a service station and the associated single storeyed buildings remain, though the use has not been active for some time. There was discussion as to whether or not the existing use rights had expired but, in conclusion, I do not consider that it is necessary for me to come to a decision on this matter.

8 The Business 2 Zone in which the site is situated forms the westernmost extreme of the Business 1 and 2 Zone associated with the Balwyn Activity Centre, which appears to be a neighbourhood centre. The principal retail activities of this centre, focussed on a Woolworths Supermarket, lie to the east of Balwyn Road, over 600m from the subject land.

9 The section of Business 2 zone on the southern side of Whitehorse Road in which the site is situated is relatively small, containing only the subject site, a flag factory and associated showroom adjoining to the west and a second service station/motor repair workshop to the west of that. There is an extended strip of Business 2 Zone opposite, containing the Balwyn Cinema and a number of commercial premises, mainly offices.

10 The sites immediately abutting the subject site include

n To the west, the aforementioned flag factory, which extends southwards well beyond the subject site, and

n To the south, a now-vacant residential lot used for parking and access associated with the flag factory.

11 Other than the sideage of the subject site and the vacant lot to its rear, Jersey Street contains dwellings. On the eastern side of Jersey Street and opposite the sideage of the subject site is the sideage of a single storeyed dwelling that faces Whitehorse Road.

12 The site was previously used as a service station with 3-bay garage and car wash. It had two crossings into Whitehorse Road and a single vehicle crossing to Jersey Street. The office and garages were set back along the southern boundary.

13 The permit application is for the use and development of the site for a service station, including signage. All the existing buildings will be demolished and existing fuel storage tanks will be removed. The existing two crossings into Whitehorse Road and the single vehicle crossing to Jersey Street will be retained as part of the new development.

n Three double-sided petrol pumps and 2 LPG dispensers

n A management centre and convenience shop adjoining the western side of the site and facing the petrol service area across the centre of the site

n Some limited landscaping along the eastern, southern and western boundaries

n Parking for 11 vehicles, including one disabled person parking space

n A number of internally and externally illuminated signs, including Identification, Directional and Panel signs.

15 The proposal does not include motor vehicle repairs or trailer hire.

16 The permit applicant is seeking permission for the service station to operate 24 hours/day, seven days/week. Council's proposed permit conditions would limit the hours of operation to:

n Friday and Saturday, between 7.00am and 12.00am, and

n Sunday to Thursday and public holidays, between 7.00am and 10.00pm.

17 A permit is required for the use and development of a Petrol station in Business 2 Zone.

18 The site is within a Business 2 Zone and an Environmental Audit overlay. It abuts land in a Road 1 Zone.

19 Land opposite in Jersey Street is zoned Residential 1, land to the west and the abutting lot to the south are zoned Business 2. Land further south in Jersey Street is zoned Residential 1.

20 Relevant policies relating to these two applications for review include the following:

n Several SPPF clauses relating to metropolitan development, economic development, urban design

n MSS Clauses 21.08 Commercial Sector and 21.12 Movement

n LPPF Clauses 22.01 Advertising Signs, 22.04 Car Parking Policy, 22.10 Retail Centre Policy

n Particular Provisions Clauses 52.05 Advertising Signs, 52.06 Car Parking, 52.07 Loading and Unloading of Vehicles, 52.12 Service Station, 52.29 Land Adjacent to a Road Zone 1.

21 The permit application was advertised. Council received five objections and seven submissions of support.

22 The application was referred to Council's engineering group, which supported the application subject to a number requirements, mainly in relation to the provision and management of parking.

23 The application was referred to VicRoads, which did not object subject to two specified conditions being included in any permit.

24 The hearing extended over one and a half days and during the evening of the first day I inspected the site and its locality.

25 The parties provided the Tribunal with written and oral submissions and expert and other evidence, including a number of photographs of the site and its locality.

26 At the conclusion of the hearing I made an oral order in relation to the Application for Review P1531/2004 that a permit be granted. I reserved my decision in relation to Application for Review P1663/2004.

27 In summary, my reasons for supporting Council's decision in relation to P1531/2004 are that:

n The amenity effects - noise, lighting, traffic - on nearby existing dwellings of a service station would not be unreasonable, having regard to the nature of the Business 2 zone and its interface with buildings in the Residential 1 Zone

n The use was reasonable within a Business 2 zone, having regard to the purpose of the zone, the established uses in this section of Business 2 Zone and existing Council policies

n I could give no particular weight to the prospective development of adjoining land in the Business 2 Zone for residential use.

28 These reasons are elaborated below, where I also set out my decision, with its reasons, in relation to Application for Review P1663/2004.

29 From the submissions made to the Tribunal it is clear to me that, underlying the various objections raised by Mr. Connor, was his client's longer-term concern about the effect that the proposed service station would have on the development potential of land controlled by Carroll & Richardson Pty Ltd. This land bounds the subject site to its west and includes the next three lots to the south, including the immediately abutting lot in the Business 2 Zone. Mr. Richardson advised the Tribunal that he had commenced investigations into the feasibility of and appropriate designs for a residential development of this land, though no formal proposal has yet been lodged with the City of Boroondara.

30 From the submissions and expert evidence, the more specific issues raised in relation in these two Reviews are as follows:

n In relation to Application for Review P1531/2004 - the affect of the proposal on

- Compliance with Council's strategies and policies in relation to the use and development of the Business 2 Zone

- the amenity of adjoining dwellings and any future residential use of the two adjoining sites in the Business 2 Zone

- the effect of the proposal on traffic safety and convenience in Whitehorse Road and Jersey Street

n In relation to Application for Review P1663/2004 - the affect of the proposal on the amenity of adjoining or nearby land uses, present or future, at late night periods.

31 A number of grounds were advanced as to why this proposal would be detrimental to the amenity of existing dwellings. There are dwellings opposite the site across Jersey Street and a dwelling immediately to the south of the vacant (parking) lot along the southern boundary of the site.

32 The amenity issues that were raised by Mr. Connor were:

n Noise from vehicles attending the service station and plant associated with its operation

n The effect of petrol tankers accessing the site and other traffic effects.

33 These issues are considered in the following sections of this Decision.

34 The first point I note is that the area of Business 2 Zone is isolated on the southern side of Whitehorse Road and situated at the western end of a long, historic strip of business premises stretching beyond Balwyn Road to the east.

35 The section of Business 2 Zone that contains the subject site extends over about 150m between Bevan and Jersey Streets. The Business 2 Zone on the northern, opposite, side of Whitehorse Road extends eastwards about half a kilometre from Austin Street, west of the Balwyn Cinema, to Balwyn Road and beyond. The western half of this strip, over 300m, is zoned Business 2, while the eastern part, which extends to and beyond Balwyn Road, is zoned Business 1.

36 The uses in the Business 2 Zone on the south side of Whitehorse Road have no relationship to the principal purpose of the Business 2 Zone. The purposes of this zone are (Tribunal's emphasis):

n To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

n To encourage the development of offices and associated commercial uses.

37 That is, none of the existing or past uses (service station, motor repairs, industry, showroom) meet the principal stated purpose of the zone, being offices and associated commercial uses. It does rather appear that this section of Business 2 Zone has been selected as the most appropriate for a disparate collection of non-residential uses.

38 Council's MSS contains a number of strategies, the most relevant of which to this fringe commercial area are set out below:

n To ensure that vibrant strip shopping centres remain the dominant form of retailing in the City.

n To retain industrial activity which will primarily serve a local need.

n To encourage office and other commercial development within the City.

n To ensure that commercial development is compatible with the commercial precinct within which it is located, and is sensitive to nearby residential areas.

n Accommodate new commercial development in designated commercial areas throughout the City.

n Integrate residential uses with commercial activities in select centres.

n Encourage industry that is of service to our business community and residents.

n Accommodate new office development in designated areas within the City.

n Comprehensively develop key sites within the City.

n Promote cleaner and quieter types of commercial and industrial activities.

40 Council's policies (Clause 22.10-3) discourage `core' retail use in the Business 2 Zone. Balwyn Activity Centre is also not one of the centres that are favoured as a focus for more intensive office development (Clause 22.03).

41 Consequently, Council's policies no not provide any particular direction for use and development in this section of Business 2 Zone. The principal direction must therefore be taken from the zone's second purpose: "To encourage the development of offices and associated commercial uses". However, there is no suggestion that there is at present any particular incentive for anyone to construct offices here and any opportunity seems likely to be overtaken by other interests.

42 The service station will include a retail outlet for a range of auto-related and convenience-type goods. This activity falls within the definition of service station. This retail outlet will be mainly directed to servicing car-based traffic, though it could also provide a service to local residents, depending on its range of goods. However, it is not clear to what extent this type of retail activity will further the retail objectives of the business zone. It certainly could not be considered to be a core retail function.

43 As Mr. Peake pointed out, there is no zone where a service station is a preferred (Section 1) use. Service station is never more than a permissible use and will never confirm with any zone's stated purpose. The best that can be said is that service station is a type of retail activity (though it is not included in the nested retail group of definitions).

44 On this basis, I see no reason why, in terms of policy, a service station is not acceptable on this site.

45 Mr. Connor submitted that the re-establishment of a service station on this site would, in conjunction with the existing service station within the same block, to the west, amount to excessive clustering of such uses.

46 From my observation, the second service station provides a very different type of petrol retailing business. It operates in conjunction with a motor repairs business and appears to serve a very different type of market. The buildings are quite old and have a very different visual quality from that being considered in this review.

47 There was some discussion about policies of other council's that have been framed to minimise clustering of service stations. Without more information about the basis of such policies, I do not consider that I can draw any conclusions from them that would be relevant to this decision. However, although there are now fewer suburban service stations than was once the case, presumably the result of rationalisation in the petrol retailing industry, they are still an accepted part of the suburban scene and their presentation has been improved over recent years. I do not see any reason why development for this use should be constrained because of the visual effects of its proximity to a nearby competitor. Issues of the amenity effects of individual or clustered service stations are matters to be considered on the merits of each issue.

48 With respect to the weight I should give to the future possibility of residential redevelopment of the adjoining sites, I make the following observations.

49 Residential use is permissible within the Business 2 Zone. However, there is no particular planning policy that provides particular support for this use other than in the most general way. While Council's retail policy (Clause 22.10-03) supports residential uses in commercial centres ("Office, residential and community infrastructure that enhance the vitality of a shopping centre be encouraged), this in the context of Council's support for the "retail vitality" of the City's shopping centres. The table to Clause 22.10 does not identify any opportunity for housing in Balwyn's commercial strip centre.

50 Consequently, while it is quite appropriate for Carroll & Richardson Pty Ltd to propose residential development of its land, this proposal is at this stage, embryonic. I do not see that I can give any weight to a possible residential development on the adjoining site when it is a use that is marginal to the purposes of the zone and is, at this stage, only an embryonic proposal.

51 In terms of the proper planning of this section of Business 2 Zone, it seems to me that all existing uses, seriously proposed uses and prospective uses are marginal to the primary purposes of the zone. I have no reason, in terms of policy, to favour one over another. This is a case where it is appropriate that proposed developments should be treated on a first-come, first served basis. Uses that follow on must then take account of what exists and, in their turn, may legitimately create constraints on other uses that develop later.

52 Mr. Barton gave evidence that the most significant source of noise, in relation to the dwellings across Jersey Street would be noise from vehicles attending the service station - in particular the shutting of car doors, engine start-ups and vehicles entering or leaving the site.

53 Mr. Barton assessed the existing background noise levels. He predicted the noise levels from activities on the service station as would occur outside the nearest windows of dwellings to the east and south, taking account of a barrier that he proposed and the effect of distance. He also made reference to two different methods of assessing the sleep-disturbance effects of night-time noise. The closest dwelling, and therefore that which would be most sensitive to noise, is that on the opposite side of Jersey Street.

54 With respect to the nearest dwelling, the closest point where a vehicle might be standing is the proposed air and water point by the site's north-eastern corner. For this dwelling, Mr. Barton concluded that vehicle-related noise from the service station [at 50-58dB(A)90], taking account of the nearest point of a noise source, would effectively not exceed the sleep-disturbance levels predicted by the more conservative of the two measures he had described. Noise from vehicles at the petrol pumps, as measure at the dwelling, would be about 41-51dB(A). Furthermore, he pointed out that these noise levels, as measured at the nearest windows of the dwelling, would be below the noise levels of traffic on Whitehorse Road, being measured as 68-80dB(A)Lmax during the daytime and evening and 68-78dB(A)Lmax at night (these latter measurements being made at the southern boundary of the subject site, about 30m from Whitehorse Road and further from that road than the above corner dwelling).

55 There was some discussion and cross-examination of Mr. Burton in relation to his assessment of and conclusions in respect to the issue of the sleep disturbance effects of vehicular activities on the service station site. The discussion focused in particular on the likely level of noise disturbance from the service station in the context of the reduced volume of night-time traffic.

56 Mr. Burton explained at some length the basis for understanding noise nuisance. In particular, he made the point that once the occurrence of loud occasional noises exceeds a particular level, additional occurrences would not increase sleep disturbance. However, the level of noisy, night-time vehicles passing between 1200am and 6.00am would exceed the relevant threshold.

57 There was some discussion about the acoustic nuisance that could be caused by the compressors and fans associated with cooling equipment required for the convenience shop. This equipment would be either situated within the building (the compressors) or to the immediate west of the building, between it and the adjoining boundary.

58 Mr. Burton proposed that an acoustic fence be constructed along the whole of the site's southern boundary and along the southern half of both the eastern and western boundaries. This would bring the western fence beyond the position proposed for the air conditioning condensers and fans, which will be situated behind the service building. Mr. Burton concluded that the effect of the acoustic fence would be to reduce the noise levels from this machinery to 60 dB(A) at a point 1m away and on the opposite side of the fence. Furthermore, SEPP N-1 requires that, if a residential use were to be established on the adjoining site, the onus would be placed on the operator of the service station to limit noise emissions to acceptable levels. This might require additional works to screen or house the noise sources. I Mr. Burton's view, it would be feasible to construct such additional works.

59 Mr. Burton had also concluded that the proposed acoustic fence would also limit plant noise to acceptable levels at the face of the existing dwelling to the south.

60 I therefore conclude that, subject to the construction of the acoustic fence proposed by Mr. Burton, noise from sources associated with the service station would not be a nuisance to the extent that would justify a refusal of permit or limitation of the hours of operation of the service station.

61 I have accepted the expert's conclusions in relation to the expected very low level of customer visitation during the midnight-to-early morning period. I also accept Mr. Burton's conclusions about the reasonableness of noise emissions from the site during these late night periods. I therefore also conclude that, with respect to noise nuisance, there is no reason why the premises should not be allowed to operate 24 hours/day.

62 I do not consider that the visual character of a service station, or its effects on the local streetscape, would be such as to justify a refusal of this proposal. As I have already pointed out, such developments are very much part of our suburban streetscape and nowadays are very smartly presented. Compared to many modern service stations, this one would not be particularly large. The residents opposite in Jersey Street have for many years resided close to a similar facility and I see no reason to assume to conclude that situation had been unacceptable.

63 The significant change that this proposal would introduce, other than the altered signage, display colours and layout, would be the provision of some modest landscaping and the acoustic fence proposed by Mr. Burton. There was no objection to the acoustic fence being placed along the site's southern boundary, but Mr. Cooper submitted that such a fence, if situated along part of the site's eastern abuttal to Jersey Street, would be out of character with its suburban residential context.

64 Mr. Peake pointed out that one of the two forms of fence construction outlined by Mr. Burton involves a paling-type layering of vertical boards and would have very much the visual character of a suburban paling fence. The proposed fence height of 2.0m is also not particularly different from such residential side fences and, in my view, quite within character for a residential street.

65 In my view, lengths of paling fences are very common along a large proportion of the sideage of residential corner lots and it would be contradictory in these circumstances to conclude that this fence would be out of character with its surrounding residential area.

66 I therefore conclude that the proposed acoustic fence is visually acceptable (as well as being acoustically desirable). With respect to the height of the fence above the ground level of the adjoining lot to the south, it seems reasonable that this should have a minimum height of 2.0m (as proposed by Mr. Burton) and, for reasons of safety, should have a height of not less than, say, 1.6m above the adjoining ground level to the south.

67 Because of its appearance, both Mr. Peake and Mr. Baulch preferred the paling-type construction for such a fence rather than the alternative of a fence constructed of solid sheet panels. This was notwithstanding that the performance of the paling-type fence would, in the longer-term, be more dependent on regular maintenance.

68 The proposed landscaping, though modest, will certainly improve on the present character of the site.

69 Overall, I conclude that the visual character of the development would be acceptable.

70 Mr. Connor raised the potential negative effect of night lighting as a serious detrimental issue. Mr. Cooper submitted that the service station's lighting would create the effect of artificial daylight down Jersey Street. In my assessment, the possible negative effects of night lighting are particularly relevant to a decision in relation to the provision for all-night trading that is the subject of Application for Review P1663/2004.

71 Mr. Peake advised me that it was not Woolworths' intention to initially operate the service station for 24 hours a day. This was an option that would be considered in the longer term. However, Woolworths Ltd wished to have this possibility available without having to make a separate, subsequent permit application. These are, in effect, the two options that are available to the Tribunal to consider - to agree to or refuse the additional hours of operation.

72 Lighting for the proposed service station will be include downlights under the canopy, illumination within the shop, internal lighting associated with a tall panel sign that is to be sited close to the north-eastern corner of the site, illuminated panels around the parapet of the shop and illuminated signs within the pumps. There would also be reflected light from the pavement onto the underside of the canopy. The principal source of light emissions, as might be observed from places in Jersey Street would be the directly or indirectly illuminated surfaces of the driveway pavement, shop, pumps and underside of the canopy and the internally illuminated signs (the corner panel sign and the parapet sign around the shop).

73 Mr. Peake advised me that the lighting would be designed to satisfy AS4282 (1997) "The Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor

Lighting", which deals with the control of nuisance from lighting sources other than street lighting.

74 Whitehorse Road is very brightly lit at night, as a main road should be. Jersey Street is relative dark, with its low-level residential lighting and substantial canopy trees. The illumination from the bright street lights of Whitehorse Road do not penetrate any distance along this street.

75 The proposed acoustic fence would, in my view, not only prevent direct views into the site in a general sense but, at night, will also screen the brightly lit ground surface, pumps and shop from any viewing points in Jersey Street that are south of the site. The single dwelling that could be markedly affected is that on the corner of Jersey Street and Whitehorse Road, with a frontage to the latter. Although not decisive, I do give some weight to the fact that the residents and/or owner of the opposite corner dwelling did not, for whatever reason, object to the permit application.

76 Overall, I conclude that any significant effect of night-time lighting would only apply to the dwelling opposite, on the corner of Jersey Street and that, in the circumstances of its situation on a main road, and with the design of lighting to conform with AS4282, the effect of all-night lighting from the service station would not be unreasonable.

77 Mr. Mensforth's conclusion was that it was feasible for petrol tankers to access the site with adequate convenience and safety, and that the service station would not generate any significant change in traffic volumes along Whitehorse Road or Jersey Street.

78 Woolworths Ltd uses mini-B Double tankers to deliver petrol. Woolworths Ltd has advised Mr. Mensforth that there would be 3-4 petrol deliveries / week and one LPG delivery. Mr. Mensforth had calculated a swept path that would be followed by a tanker entering the site from an easterly direction from Whitehorse Road via the Jersey Street entrance. This clearly demonstrated the feasibility of this approach and that the parked tanker would not obstruct other vehicles from entering or leaving the site. Mr. Mensforth stated that access from the east created the most difficult access path, and that access for trucks approaching from the west would be less constrained.

79 Mr. Connor was concerned about the effect of deliveries out-of-business hours in terms of noise nuisance. However, the hours of delivery can be effectively controlled by permit condition and this is proposed in Council's decision to grant a permit.

80 Mr. Mensforth concluded that neither the operation of the service station nor its connection with the Woolworths store to the east (i.e. via the discount offer to Woolworths' store customers) would lead to any significant increase in traffic volumes along Whitehorse Road. He also concluded that the operation of the service station would not induce additional traffic to use Jersey Street. I accept both these conclusions.

81 During cross-examination of Mr. Mensforth, Mr. Connor expressed concerns about the effect of delivery tankers blocking traffic in Whitehorse Road, blocking traffic accessing the site while waiting themselves for access to the delivery points, blocking traffic using Jersey Street and like concerns. It seems to me that these concerns relate to management of delivery trucks that must be similar for any service station on this type of arterial road. This is properly a matter for VicRoads to raise if it considers that this activity would be likely to create traffic congestion or dangers. Mr. Mensforth considered that these matters could be subject to appropriate management solutions that would be within the capabilities of the service station manager and the drivers of petrol delivery tankers.

82 For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that it would be reasonable to permit the use of the site for a service station and that it would be also acceptable to allow it to operate 24 hours each day.

83 Mr. Peake sought inclusion of conditions relating to the acoustic fencing, requesting that the Tribunal refer to the paling-type construction.

84 Mr. Peake requested deletion of Council's proposed conditions 31 and 32. Mr. Connor had no instructions in relation to these conditions but did not oppose the request.

85 Mr. Peake requested the inclusion of a condition to the effect "prior to commencement of the use, a lighting report demonstrating compliance with AS8242 to provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority". I consider this appropriate, having relied on the observance of this standard in reaching my decision.

86 Mr. Burton proposed that the hours of fuel delivery should conform with the requirements of the Noise Control Guidelines (July 1992), but these already coincide with those proposed in the permit conditions.

87 For the above reasons, I consider it appropriate that the land be used as a service station and that the conditions limiting the hours of operation should be deleted. Other conditions should be added to those proposed by Council in its decision to grant a permit.