respondent. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of Monash City Council and ordered that no planning permit be granted for TPA/56395 (ZC Wood Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2025] VCAT 1078, Order dated 5 December 2025).
Key principles
The Tribunal affirmed the council's refusal because the proposal's scale and intensity, particularly the excessive basement coverage and northern building height, failed to...
A waiver of on-site car parking under Clause 52.06 was refused: the Tribunal found the applicant's parking demand evidence underestimated likely demand given local road...
Removal of substantial basement envelope is required to create deep soil areas capable of supporting canopy trees; because the proposed basement footprint precluded meaningful...
Overall planning policy (Clauses 13.07-1L-01; 15.01-5L; GRZ3 decision guidelines at Clause 32.08-14; and Clause 52.06) must be balanced: strategic locational support for a...
Issues before the court
Whether the proposed medical centre enjoys strategic planning support sufficient to warrant approval despite GRZ3 landscape and character objectives.
Plain English Summary
VCAT upheld Monash Council's refusal of a three-storey medical centre at 31-33 High Street Road, Ashwood. While the location had some policy support for a medical centre, the Tribunal found the building's massing, an overly large basement that prevented deep-soil planting and canopy trees, and an under-provision of on-site parking (with unreliable demand evidence) would harm neighbourhood character and cause parking and traffic impacts. The Tribunal refused the parking waiver and required redesign reducing basement footprint and northern height to achieve adequate landscaping and transition to adjoining houses. No permit was granted.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Deep Dive
1,680 words · generated 10/06/2026
What happened
ZC Wood Pty Ltd sought a planning permit to develop 31-33 High Street Road, Ashwood, for a three‑storey medical centre with basement parking, associated vegetation removal, signage and altered access to a Transport Road Zone (TPA/56395). The Monash City Council refused the application on multiple grounds including built form/character, tree removal, parking and traffic issues, waste/deliveries and amenity concerns (refusal grounds summarised in the Reasons). The applicant amended plans during the proceedings (substituted plans dated 11 July 2025) reducing floor area and parking, altering setbacks and relocating bin storage; the applicant also offered to reduce practitioner numbers from 16 to 14 if necessary.
Whether the development's landscape response, built form, basement and setbacks adequately respond to the Garden City character and GRZ3 objectives.
Whether the proposal would cause unacceptable amenity impacts (privacy, overlooking, noise, waste collection, overshadowing).
Whether the proposed parking provision and traffic arrangements (including waiver of three spaces) are acceptable.
Cited legislation
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
The proceeding was a review under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) at VCAT, heard 25–26 August 2025 with an inspection on 27 August 2025. Member Peter Gaschk heard expert traffic evidence (Mr Chirag Safi), town planning evidence and oral submissions from council and several affected neighbours. Amendment VC283 to the Victoria Planning Provisions was gazetted after the hearing; the Tribunal gave it some weight but treated retention/removal of specific canopy trees as a merits issue. The Tribunal ultimately affirmed council’s decision and refused to grant a permit (Order 5 December 2025).
Why the court decided this way
The Tribunal applied the planning instruments and policies relevant to the General Residential Zone Schedule 3 (GRZ3), Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1, and provisions governing parking (Clause 52.06), non‑residential uses (Clause 13.07-1L-01), and neighbourhood character (Schedule 3 to the GRZ). The decisive reasoning can be grouped into three linked concerns:
Built form and landscape capacity (Garden City character)
GRZ3 and Schedule 3 prioritise a garden city character with well‑vegetated gardens and canopy trees and require new development to minimise massing and provide setbacks and planting to enable screening and transition. The Tribunal found the proposal’s basement footprint and resulting shallow landscaping setbacks would not allow deep soil or canopy trees to be established and therefore failed to meet these objectives (see findings on basement setbacks and deep soil constraints). The northern interface (adjacent to 7 Kennett Street) was identified as particularly sensitive: the building’s northern corner reached 12.7m, creating a visually prominent, jarring element in a low‑scale residential context that the proposed planting could not satisfactorily screen.
Parking and traffic impact
Clause 52.06 sets the parking rates and the Tribunal must be satisfied a waiver is acceptable having regard to demand, local road conditions and access to public transport. The applicant sought a waiver of three spaces (proposing 38 spaces against a 41‑space requirement). The Tribunal concluded the traffic evidence understates demand because the chosen comparator had more extensive public transport and different intersection geometry; local streets (notably Kennett Street) are narrow, have turn restrictions and existing parking pressures. The Tribunal found the waiver would produce overflow parking and additional vehicle movements into the residential hinterland, adversely affecting amenity.
Cumulative outcome and policy balance
Although the Tribunal accepted that a medical centre can be an appropriate use on this corner site, that locational support does not remove the need to satisfy GRZ3 objectives and decision guidelines. The combined failure to provide effective deep soil landscaping/canopy trees, the inadequate transition to adjoining residential buildings, and the unacceptable parking/traffic consequences were determinative. The Tribunal therefore affirmed council’s refusal.
The Tribunal did recognise some positive amendments (lowered basement finished floor level, relocated bin store, increased some upper‑level setbacks and proposed replanting), and gave Amendment VC283 some weight as supportive of accessible community services; nevertheless, these did not cure the key deficiencies.
Before and after state of the law
Before this decision: VCAT and municipal practice require balancing locational/policy support for non‑residential uses against zone purposes (neighbourhood character, landscaping and amenity). Clause 32.08 and Schedule 3 already set expectations for garden city outcomes and for how non‑residential uses should transition to residential contexts. Clause 52.06 requires careful assessment of parking waivers in light of local conditions.
After this decision: The decision reaffirms a careful, site‑specific application of GRZ3 objectives. It emphasises that:
Strategic locational support for community uses is not decisive when scheme objectives for landscape, canopy retention/provision and transition are not met.
Basements that preclude deep soil and canopy planting can be a fatal design flaw when Schedule 3 requires canopy trees and garden character.
Parking waivers must be supported by robust comparative evidence sensitive to differences in public transport access and local road geometry; in constrained local street networks, tribunals will be reluctant to permit parking shortfalls that are likely to produce overflow into residential streets.
The decision does not create new statutory law, but it clarifies application of GRZ3 and Clause 52.06 principles in contexts where intensive non‑residential uses front residential streets with limited local parking capacity.
Key passages with plain-English translation
"I have not been persuaded that the proposal will result in a satisfactory planning outcome. I am particularly concerned regarding the safety, efficiency and amenity impacts that will result from the additional traffic movements and overflow parking..." (Tribunal summary conclusion)
Plain English: Even though a medical centre is acceptable in principle here, the design and expected parking/traffic would harm residents' amenity and safety; that makes the proposal unacceptable overall.
"The basement is simply too large ... the basement envelope should be set back from all site boundaries to enable more deep soil conditions above for planting of canopy trees at ground level."
Plain English: The proposed underground car park is too big and prevents the planting of big trees; without planting space, the site cannot achieve the garden city character required.
"Based on my concerns regarding the parking demand rate estimated by Mr Safi, I find the proposal would lead to additional and adverse street parking and extra vehicle movements into the local residential street network."
Plain English: The traffic expert used the wrong comparisons and underestimated how many cars will need to park on nearby streets; that will make parking worse for neighbours.
"For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No permit is granted."
Plain English: The Tribunal agrees with the council and refuses the permit.
In the Reasons the Tribunal repeatedly anchors these conclusions in specific scheme provisions (GRZ3 purposes, Clause 32.08-14 decision guidelines, Clause 52.06), and in site‑specific facts (basement setbacks, narrowness and restrictions of Kennett Street, lack of comparable public transport).
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
This decision is most instructive where the following elements co‑exist:
A proposal for an intensive non‑residential use (medical centre or similar) in a residential zone (GRZ3 or similar schedule requiring canopy tree retention and garden city character).
A large basement or subgrade envelope that substantially reduces available deep soil and prevents canopy tree planting in front, side or rear setbacks.
A narrow adjoining residential street or constrained local road network with turn restrictions, high existing parking occupancy and limited options for on‑street parking relief.
A proposal seeking a modest waiver of required on‑site parking without robust, site‑appropriate comparative evidence or where public transport accessibility is materially inferior to comparators.
Where these factors appear, this decision indicates tribunals will scrutinise both design (basement/landscape capacity and transition to neighbouring dwelling scale) and traffic evidence, and will likely refuse permits where the combined effects would harm character and residential amenity.
How later courts have treated it
As this decision is recent (5 December 2025), later authorities are not recorded in the Reasons. The Tribunal itself cited earlier VCAT authorities when addressing the applicant’s submissions (GHP Architects v Monash [2011] VCAT 1664; Mingcheng Bayside Development v Monash [2021] VCAT 1135; Charterarm Investments v Stonnington [2009] VCAT 365). Those prior authorities were used to situate the starting point that non‑residential uses may enjoy policy support, but Gaschk M emphasised that policy support must be reconciled with GRZ3 landscape/character objectives.
Practitioners should monitor subsequent VCAT and court decisions for application or refinement of the points emphasised here: the relationship between basement design and deep‑soil landscaping, and the level of robustness required in parking demand comparisons where local street constraints exist.
Still-open questions
Degree of redesign required: The Tribunal required reduction in height at the northern interface and a smaller basement to enable deep soil and canopy trees, but did not prescribe a detailed envelope. Future cases will test how much reduction (storeys/metres or footprint) is necessary to satisfy GRZ3 objectives in similar contexts.
Quantification of deep soil: The decision identifies a qualitative failure to provide deep soil sufficient for canopy tree establishment, but does not set a precise quantitative threshold (soil volume, area or tree rootzone). Practitioners will look for future guidance on minimum deep soil metrics that satisfy Schedule 3.
Comparative parking methodology: The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s comparator on grounds of different public transport access and intersection geometry. That raises practical questions about acceptable comparators and the evidentiary standard for parking demand studies. Future decisions may elaborate what comparative adjustments or modelling techniques are required.
Weight to statewide amendments: The Tribunal gave some weight to Amendment VC283 but treated it as high‑level. Where amendments introduce stronger protections for urban forest or canopy retention, it will require case law to settle how much prospective amendments shift the merits balance when they post‑date lodgement.
Use of ROW for staff parking and conflicts with servicing: The Tribunal expressed concern about at‑grade staff parking in an unnamed ROW that provides service access to commercial tenancies. How tribunals will prioritise private parking versus shared servicing functions in such RO Ws remains to be developed.
Conclusion: ZC Wood v Monash CC emphasises that in GRZ3 contexts policy support for community facilities must be matched by designs that enable canopy planting and respectful transition to low‑scale housing, and that modest parking shortfalls will not be tolerated where local streets are constrained. Practitioners should prioritise early, robust traffic evidence tailored to local street geometry, limit basement footprints to enable deep soil, and design northern/rear interfaces to materially reduce height and massing facing residential properties.
Judgment (72 paragraphs)
[1]
The application (TPA/56395) seeks permission for the use and development of the site for a medical centre (three storeys and basement parking) including vegetation removal, reduction in parking and alteration of access to a Transport Road Zone, Schedule 2 on the subject land at 31-33 High Street Road, Ashwood.
The review site at 31-33 High Street Road, Ashwood is located on the north-west corner of High Street Road and Kennett Street, Ashwood. A constructed right of way - un-named ('RoW') runs along the western boundary and services 16 commercial properties fronting Warrigal Road and 3 Kennett Street.
[12]
The site includes two parcels of land with a total area of approximately 1491sqm. The frontage to High Street Road is 37.4 and a depth of 38.10m (north-south). The land is encumbered by a 1.83m wide drainage and sewerage easement along the northern (rear) boundary.
[13]
The subject land has a fall of approximately 2.8m from the south-west to the north-east. Existing development on the site includes one single storey dwelling and associated outbuildings on each parcel. The site includes more than 30 trees and large shrubs, including a prominent Ginkgo biloba canopy tree located in the south-western corner of the site.
[14]
The site includes one single vehicle crossing to High Street Road (for the western parcel) and one to Kennett Street (from the eastern parcel). A bus stop exists in front of the site on High Street Road.
[15]
Kennett Street generally includes 'low-rise' residential dwellings and parking restrictions along both sides of the street. (Noting the western side of the street include 'no stopping' restrictions during normal business hours.) The eastern side of the street provides unrestricted car parking. Traffic conditions at the street's intersection with High Street Road is restricted to left turns only (no right turns into or out of the street). This restriction applies at all times.
[16]
The surrounding land comprises residential dwellings to the north and east, and commercial properties to the west and south. The commercial properties to the west form part of a small local shopping strip and are not identified as a key activity centre.
[17]
Adjoining land to the north at 7 Kennett Street contains a single storey dwelling with a garage abutting the common boundary. Land to the south at 549-557 Warrigal Road contains a Woolworths Supermarket facing Warrigal Road. This building includes a 'roll-over style' meshed canopy feature to the street frontage, with a basement parking entrance located directly opposite Kennet Street. The subject building has an approximate building height of 10.4m and is in a Commercial 1 Zone.
[18]
Land to the east at 35 High Street Road contains a single storey dwelling. As noted above, land to the west is developed with 'double storey,' strip shops, facing Warrigal Road. These properties are located in a Commercial 1 Zone. Car parking and loading areas for these shops is provided by the existing constructed RoW that separates it from the review site.
[19]
Unaccompanied of the review site, 7 Kennett Street and surrounds on 27 August 2025.
[20]
This review proceeding concerns an application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) by ZC Wood Pty Ltd ('applicant') regarding Monash City Council's ('council') determination to refuse Permit Application No. TPA/56395 ('application') in relation to land at 31-33 High Street Road, Ashwood ('review site').
The application seeks permission for the use and development of the review site for a medical centre (three storeys and basement parking with staff parking at ground level) including vegetation removal, reduction in parking and alteration of access to a Transport Road Zone, Schedule 2.
The original application proposed up to 16 specialist practitioners. The applicant confirmed at the hearing it would be prepared to reduce the number of practitioners to 14 by condition if a permit was to issue.
[21]
Amended permit application - Tribunal order dated 28 August 2025
[22]
The Tribunal's order dated 28 August 2025 addressed the substitution of amended plans. These were circulated by the applicant in accordance with the Tribunal's PNPE9 requirements. The parties did not oppose the substitution of these plans.
I provided consent to amend the permit application by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed by the applicant with the Tribunal:
Prepared by: AJ Planning and Design.
Drawing numbers: V.01 - V16 (inclusive).
Dated: 11 July 2025
The applicant provided a useful summary of the key changes included in the substituted plans. An extract is provided below:
[23]
Reduction in the floor area from 1249 to 1196 sqm.
Reduction in the number of car spaces from 44 to 38.
Revised basement layout reducing car spaces from 30 to 29.
Reduction in the number of car spaces access from the ROW from 14 to 9.
Revised building setbacks from the site's northern boundary. The ground level minimum setback of 5m remains unchanged. The first floor has reduced from 8 to 7m, whilst at the second floor the setback to the wall face has increased from 8 to 9.5m, noting the introduction of a north facing terrace at level 2 within this setback.
Revised roof form/profile.
Relocation of Bin storage from Kennett Street to the ROW.
Site coverage increased from 45.1 to 46%.
Permeability increased from 21.5 to 22.2%.
Signage reduced slightly from 3.2 to 3m high.
The reduced basement level by 300mm has lowered the overall building accordingly. The maximum building height is shown on the northern elevation with a height of 12.7m measured to the roof above NGL. Section B shows the overall height reduced from 14m to 13.7 to the roof services.
[24]
Figure 1: Site Plan Drawing No. V.01 - Source: Substituted Plans.
Council refused the application on the following 10 grounds:
The built form, scale and setbacks of the proposal and overall impact on character are not consistent with Clause 13.07-1L-01 - Non-Residential Use and Development in Residential Areas Policy.
The proposed removal of mature trees and inability to satisfactorily plant new canopy trees with spreading crowns is not consistent with Clause 15.01-1L-02 - Tree Conservation for a Garden City Policy.
The proposal is not consistent with the strategies for the Garden City (Northern Areas) at Clause 15.01-5L - Monash Preferred Neighbourhood Character Policy.
The proposal is not consistent with the decision guidelines of the General Residential Zone and Schedule 3 at Clause 32.08.
The proposed tree removal is not consistent with the objectives and decision guidelines of the Vegetation Protection Overlay at Clause 42.02.
The car parking and access arrangements are not satisfactory, unsafe, and inconsistent with the Car Parking Provisions at Clause 52.06.
Deliveries and waste collection is inadequate, not functional and will have an adverse impact on surrounding residential amenity.
Sign 3 is inconsistent with the character of the area and will impact road safety.
The proposal will result in overlooking into habitable room windows in 7 Kennett Street.
The proposal will have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the area.
Following assessment of the substituted plans, while acknowledging some improvements to the proposal, council confirmed its previous refusal grounds, but added the following ground of refusal:
The proposed reduction in car parking will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the local area.
[33]
The proposal seeks to provide a relatively large medical centre - accommodating up to 16 practitioners upon two typical allotments in a Residential Area. This is a relatively intensive use of the land. Whilst the actual use of the site for this purpose raises no concern from the Council, its intensity has unacceptable ramifications for the public realm including, inter alia:
a. Excessive building bulk to both of its main street frontages;
b. Excessive hard surfaces presenting to the public realm -
particularly to High Street Road;
c. A basement that precludes reasonable in-ground planting and the retention of Tree 12
(Ginkgo); and
d. A shortfall of car parking that will give rise to impacts to residential streets.
[34]
The respondents support council's refusal. Their key concerns were expanded upon at the hearing, including videos, photographs and supporting documents. Their key concerns include:
Inappropriate building scale and commercial intrusion;
inadequate landscape response;
adverse traffic generation into residential streets;
parking shortfall and overflow;
existing and preferred neighbourhood character;
residential safety, amenity (noise, overlooking and privacy) and public health impacts;
inadequate traffic evidence to justify parking waiver; and
better locational alternatives exist within established activity centres.
The applicant submits the revised proposal represents an 'acceptable planning outcome' on the review site. The applicant says the subject land is 'well located' for the non-residential use as proposed.
The applicant submits the proposal will provide a 'net community benefit' in the form of a medical centre that 'will play an important role at the edge of the activity centre.'
The applicant also says the revised proposal provides an appropriate response to existing and preferred character, while ensuring that amenity impacts are well managed through the proposed design response.
The applicant also relies on the expert traffic evidence of Chirag Safir, Traffic Engineer with O'Brien Traffic Consultants.
[35]
At the hearing and during cross examination of the applicant's expert traffic witness (Mr Chirag Safi) it was established that Mr Safi's Expert Witness Statement had incorrectly addressed his 'comparative specialist medical centre' as '607-609 Camberwell Road, Camberwell'. In a question of clarification from the Tribunal, Mr Safi confirmed he had incorrectly addressed the medical centre in his written Expert Witness Statement. Mr Safi confirmed the correct address should have read '607-609 Riversdale Road, Camberwell'.
Based on the responses to specific questions I put to Mr Safi I was satisfied a clerical error had been made. Mr Safi also confirmed the focus of his evidence had not changed as the intent and opinion expressed in his Expert Witness Statement remained unaltered. As the parties were happy to continue with their cross examination of the applicant's expert witness, I directed that the hearing would continue.
However, to ensure procedural fairness, I advised the parties I would provide further opportunity at the conclusion of the hearing for Mr Safi to correct and re-submit his Expert Witness Statement and enable further opportunity for the council and respondents to provide additional written submissions (should they so wish) to the corrected Expert Witness Statement.[2] The applicant subsequently forwarded and circulated a corrected Expert Witness Statement from Mr Safi dated 1 September 2025.
Some respondents took the opportunity to provide further written submission to the Tribunal's order. Mr Stafford submitted that the comparative medical centre used by Mr Safi ('Riversdale Road site') had a number of key differences to the physical context of the review site.
In particular, he noted that Kennett Street was narrower and the side street upon which the Riversdale Road site was located (Kasouka Road), while having restricted parking on both sides, was wider and enabled two cars to safely pass each other. This was not the case in Kennett Street. Additionally, he submitted that Kasouka Road did not have the same intersection turning restrictions that applied to Kennett Street.
Mr Stafford also submitted he required the provision of a new fence to be constructed on his common boundary with the review site. Specifically, to address acoustic and privacy concerns that he says would arise from the proposal if approved.
[36]
Amendment VC283 ('AmVC283') to the Monash Planning Scheme was gazetted on 2 September 2025. This gazettal occurred after the conclusion of the proceeding and subsequent site inspection of the review site by the Tribunal.
According to the Explanatory Report accompanying AmVC283:
[37]
Amendment VC283 to the Victoria Planning Provisions and all planning schemes is required to update the Planning Policy Framework to implement Plan for Victoria (Department of Transport and Planning, 2025). The amendment updates and introduces policy, removes references to Plan Melbourne 2017-2050: Metropolitan Planning Strategy and makes general drafting improvements and clarifications.
[38]
Given the extent and nature of policy changes associated with this amendment, the Tribunal issued an order dated 8 August 2025, to provide an opportunity for the parties to provide a written submission addressing any implications arising from AmVC283 for this proceeding. The order also provided the opportunity for the parties to make submissions in response to the submission of another party.
Council submitted AmVC283 had, amongst other matters, amended the focus and strategy objectives under clauses 12.06-1S (Urban Forests) and 13.01-3S (Urban heat). Council says the proposal seeks to remove an established canopy tree (a Ginkgo Biloba) from the south-west corner of the frontage of the site to High Street Road) and the proposed policy changes in AmVC283 support retention of this type of canopy tree on the review site.
The applicant submits that AmVC283 should not be seen as 'supportive' of retaining the subject Ginkgo Biloba tree on the review site. It submits its proposal to remove this particular tree (amongst others currently on the review site) is an appropriate planning outcome. Particularly given its intention to introduce a replanting schedule of new vegetation (including some canopy trees) on the site.
The respondents did not make submissions on this amendment.
In considering these submissions and the wider policy objectives introduced by AmVC283, I accept the amendment provides some 'high level' policy support for community services (including medical facilities) being placed within appropriate locations, particularly where such uses would attract local community support and economic stimulus into those areas.
However, I do not agree with council this amendment leads one to conclude the existing Ginkgo Biloba canopy tree should be retained on the review site. This is clearly a matter of merits and requires assessment against the submissions of the parties and the facts of the matter.
Based on my comments above I have given AmVC283 some weight.
[39]
In assessing this proposal, I consider the following key issues are relevant to my decision:
Does the proposed development benefit from strategic planning support?
Does the proposed development represent an acceptable planning outcome, having regard to landscape and neighbourhood character?
Will the proposal result in any unacceptable amenity impacts?
Is parking and traffic movement generated by the proposal acceptable?
I acknowledge the proposal demonstrates some strategic planning support under clause 13.07-1L-01, being adjacent to an existing activity centre and located on a higher order road and corner site.
However, having considered the submissions and evidence before me, assisted by my site visit, I have not been persuaded that the proposal will result in a satisfactory planning outcome. I am particularly concerned regarding the safety, efficiency and amenity impacts that will result from the additional traffic movements and overflow parking that will be generated into the local residential street network from this proposal.
I also find the scale and intensity of the use and development is excessive and the extent of basement coverage too large for the context of the site and has not responded appropriately to the built form outcomes and preferred landscape character sought in the General Residential Zone, Schedule 3 ('GRZ3').
On balance, I find the proposal has not satisfied the relevant purposes of the GRZ3, the decision guidelines for non-residential uses and development under clause 13.07-1L-01 and the traffic and parking objectives and requirements expressed in clause 52.06. These are determinative matters in my decision and in my view cannot be appropriately addressed by a simple reduction in building scale and form alone.
For the reasons provided below, I find the proposal requires a reduction in building height and form (particularly to its northern interface), reduced basement form to enable greater landscape setbacks above with deep soil opportunity that will enable meaningful landscaping on the site (including provision of canopy trees) and reduction in the number of proposed practitioners with the required level of parking spaces specified under clause 52.06. Given the General Residential Zone purposes and physical setting of the site, I do not support a waiver of parking as proposed.
[40]
Does the proposed development benefit from strategic planning support?
[41]
I have set out the relevant zone, overlay and associated planning policy that applies to the review site in the Information section above. I have included the relevant zoning map below. The review site is shown in red outline.
Under clause 32.08 of the GRZ3 a planning permit is required to use the land for a Medical Centre (given the conditions in Section 1 are not met) and to construct or carry out works for a Section 2 use (32.08-10).
I observe the purposes of the GRZ3 reflect a residential focus, noting the zone purposes seek (amongst other matters):
To encourage development that is responsive to the neighbourhood character of the area.
To encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport.
[44]
However, I also acknowledge the zone purposes also provide for '... educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.'
Clause 32.08-14 includes the following decision guidelines in any assessment of non-residential use and development in the GRZ3. These are relevant to my assessment and include:
Whether the use or development is compatible with residential use.
Whether the use generally serves local community needs.
The scale and intensity of the use and development.
The design, height, setback and appearance of the proposed buildings and works.
The proposed landscaping.
The provision of car and bicycle parking and associated accessways.
Any proposed loading and refuse collection facilities.
The safety, efficiency and amenity effects of traffic to be generated by the proposal.
Sign requirements apply to the proposal and are found at clause 52.05, where the GRZ3 is in a Category 3 (High amenity areas). A key purpose in this category is 'To ensure that signs in high-amenity areas are orderly, of good design and do not detract from the appearance of the building on which a sign is displayed or the surrounding area.
I agree with council and the applicant that building heights and minimum garden requirements for the GRZ3 do not apply here, as the proposal is not for residential use or development.
However, I also note that a Medical Centre is specified as a section one use (no permit required) if:
The gross floor area of all buildings must not exceed 250 square metres.
Must not require a permit under Clause 52.06-3.
The site must adjoin, or have access to, a road in a Transport Zone 2 or a Transport Zone 3.
[45]
Nevertheless, the proposal before me proposes a gross leasable floor area ('GLFA') of 1196.8sqm (Plan V.01). This is a significant increase (946.8sqm+) above the section 1 GLFA condition. I discuss the implications of this in Key Issues.
Schedule 3 of the GRZ applies to 'Garden City Suburbs' and seeks (amongst other matters):
To support new development that contributes to the preferred garden city character through well landscaped and spacious gardens that include canopy trees.
To support new development that minimises building mass and visual bulk in the streetscape through generous front and side setbacks, landscaping in the front setback and breaks and recesses in the built form.
[46]
I discuss the implications of the highlighted sections of this policy setting under Key Issues below.
[47]
Clause 52.06 also applies to the proposal. The proposal seeks a waiver of three car spaces on site, based on 3.5 spaces per 100sqm of leasable floor area proposed for the medical centre use. The site is located in the Principal Public Transport Network. Applying this rate to the proposal results in 41 car spaces required on site. The proposal provides 38 spaces (29 spaces in the basement and nine spaces proposed at ground level with access from the adjoining unnamed Right of Way ('RoW')). This is a shortfall of three car spaces. A permit is triggered for the waiver under clause 52.06-3.
Vegetation removal permission is also required for two canopy trees on the review site that are taller than 10.0m in the Vegetation Protection Overlay, Schedule 1 ('VPO1'). This permission applies to a 14.0m Ginkgo Biloba located in the south-western corner of the site and a 18.0m tall Weeping Lilly Pilly (Waterhousea Floribunda) located in the rear setback (northern-western boundary). I also note the proposal is seeking to remove all existing vegetation on the site and undertake a new landscape plan and planting regime.[4]
Bicycle requirements are expressed at clause 52.34-5. Six bicycle spaces are required and have been provided in the proposed basement.
[48]
Policy settings in clause 02.03 are relevant to this proposal. In summary these policies (amongst other matters) seek to ensure non-residential uses are appropriately located and designed to respect the 'garden city character' sought for the municipality. Policy also seeks to retain and encourage development of private health facilities 'as an adjunct to key community medical resources.'
Clause 02.04-3 identifies the review site is located within the 'Garden City Suburbs' character precinct area.
Policy objectives expressed in clause 13.07-1L-01 are also relevant and seek:
To ensure non-residential uses or development do not adversely impact on the character and amenity of residential areas.
To ensure that onsite car parking meets the needs of the use and minimise amenity impacts to the surrounding residential area.
Clause 15.01-5L addresses the Monash Preferred Neighbourhood Character Policy. The review site is located within the Garden City Suburbs - Northern Areas. Relevant strategies applicable to this character precinct include:
Provide well-vegetated front and rear gardens with shrubs and large canopy trees.
Design new development to complement the established buildings through consistent siting, articulated facades and use of materials.
Design buildings adjacent to public parks, reserves and other open space to address the public area.
Screen new development from the street and neighbouring properties with well-planted gardens.
Provide a mix of native and exotic vegetation and trees, and retain remnant indigenous vegetation and coniferous wind-rows.
Provide no or transparent front fences.
Limit vehicle crossovers.
[49]
Clauses 19.02-1S and 19.02-1R expressly relate to 'Health facilities' and amongst other matters, seek to facilitate the location of health and health-related facilities and practitioners at a neighbourhood level, taking into account demographic trends, the existing and future demand requirements and the integration of services into community settings.
The proposal was also referred to the Head, Transport for Victoria as the site is located on a Transport Road Zone Category 2 ('TRZ2'). This authority has not objected to the proposal, subject to conditions.
[50]
All parties acknowledge the review site has some capacity for the use and development of a medical centre. This is not contested. However, council and respondents say the proposed height, scale, intensity and lack of parking and meaningful landscape setting results in an inappropriate response to the site conditions.
I am satisfied that a medical centre is an appropriate land use on this site. I say this noting the site sits comfortably on a corner site that abuts a main road setting (higher order road) and is adjacent to a vibrant activity centre.
However, as I highlighted above, policy settings also require a balancing of the proposed use and building form to ensure the proposal responds appropriately to the preferred character and landscape setting sought by the Garden City Suburbs Northern Areas precinct objectives and the decision guidelines and strategies expressed at clauses 113.07-1L-01 and 15.01-5L.
The policy setting expressed above have a strong emphasis on new use and development achieving a Garden City Character outcome. As highlighted in clause 15.01-5L, this character is to be achieved through measures such as, well-vegetated front and rear gardens with shrubs and large canopy trees, screening new development from the street and neighbouring properties with well-planted gardens and a mix of native and exotic vegetation and trees on sites.
The applicant referred me to a number of Tribunal decisions that it says support its proposition that '.... the starting point for consideration in this matter is that the establishment of a medical centre on this site enjoys policy support'.[5] The applicant says that 'respecting neighbourhood character' is clearly not about insisting that new residential development mimic or copy existing single dwellings that already sit in the immediate neighbourhood.'[6]
While I agree the subject land has some appropriate locational attributes that support a medical centre, this does not mean that other policy settings I have noted around Garden City Character and landscape character effectively become obsolete. Particularly as there are relevant purposes and guidelines to consider for non-residential uses.
For example, the GRZ3 neighbourhood character purposes clearly identify that new development is to '... contribute(s) (sic) to the preferred garden city character through well landscaped and spacious gardens that include canopy trees'. Additionally, new development is also required to 'To promote the preferred garden city character by minimising hard paving throughout the site by limiting the length and width of accessways and limiting paving within open space areas'.
[51]
Does the proposed development represent an acceptable planning outcome, having regard to landscape and neighbourhood character?
[52]
The applicant submits the proposed development has achieved an acceptable planning outcome having regard to landscape and neighbourhood character. The applicant says a key consideration from a character perspective, is that the building is unashamedly a 'non-residential building.' The applicant says a 'first principles' assessment is therefore required.
The applicant submits that the retention of the two canopy trees on the site sought by council would result in a complete redesign of the basement. It does not support this outcome.
The applicant says the new landscape planting proposed for the site will appropriately address landscape character outcomes. The applicant submits that additional garden space has been provided to the sensitive northern interface, including a 5.0m setback/garden area to the north-east corner, which is shown in the following extract of the circulated landscaping plan prepared by Habitat Landscape Environmental Design Consultants (Figure 10 below).
The applicant says this garden area will create '... a strong response to the sites only immediate abuttal, in addition to responding positively to the garden city concept'.
[53]
Figure 10: Extract of the circulated landscaping plan updated by Habitat - Source: Applicant's written submission
[54]
Council does not agree with the applicant and is concerned with the building presentation to High Street Road. Noting the new building is higher than the buildings on the adjoining properties as they present to this main road and intersection. Council is also concerned with the proposed rooftop element that is treated in a 'glossy brass chrome finish.' It says this presentation has been extenuated by the amended plans by introducing a forecourt setting to the proposal that council says '... is hard-edged including signage, stairs, paving and bin storage.'
In this physical setting, council says the revised design is not an appropriate response to the Garden City Character and landscape setting that is outlined in Schedule 3 of the GRZ.
Council is particularly concerned with the proposed design treatment and built form outcome to the sensitive residential interface that exists in Kennett Street and further north of the subject land. It says that existing topography is significant here and the 12.7m height of built form proposed at the north-eastern corner of the site is a 'poor design response' to the residential setting of this street.
While council acknowledges the revised design has provided a 'stepped' setback to the upper level at the northern interface to 7 Kennett Street, it says this level of articulation is still 'too modest, the transition too token.' It is also concerned the revised northern setbacks include a 'cantilevered form' that results in a 'sheer and heavy profile' to the street setting below. The council included the following marked up diagram to demonstrate this.
[55]
Figure 11: Annotated excerpt from PNPE9 Substituted Eastern Elevation Plan - Source; Council written submission.
[56]
The respondent at 7 Kennett Street agrees with council and maintains the revised built form will adversely impact the privacy and outlook from his dwelling and secluded private open space ('SPOS') areas.
[57]
I note one of the key objectives in Schedule 3 to the GRZ seeks:
[58]
To support new development that minimises building mass and visual bulk in the streetscape through generous front and side setbacks, landscaping in the front setback and breaks and recesses in the built form.
[59]
I acknowledge the substituted plans have provided opportunity for some canopy tree planting in the discrete garden areas proposed at the north-west and north-east corners to the northern boundary of the review site. I find this is a positive design response.
However, I also find the proposed landscape setbacks along all site boundaries have been compromised to some degree by the basement form that limits the amount of deep soil conditions and landscape treatment that can be achieved in these setbacks above the basement. I say this noting the following boundary setbacks of the basement:
North interface (7 Kennett Street) - Minimum 2.5m setback.
South interface (High Street Road) - Minimum 1.8m (including a 0.5m setback for the stair entrance to the ground floor).
West interface (Unnamed RoW) - Minimum 0.5m.
East interface (Kennett Street) - Minimum 3.2 (including a 6.1m wide ramp to the basement).
In the context of these setbacks, I find the basement is simply too large in the context of this site. In my view, the basement envelope should be set back from all site boundaries to enable more deep soil conditions above for planting of canopy trees at ground level.
I am also concerned with the presentation and massing of built form to the rear northern boundary. I agree with council this boundary interface is most sensitive given its direct interface with the residential building at 7 Kennet Street.
Council says that existing topography conditions are important here in assessing impacts to this interface. I agree. Existing topography conditions means the site falls to the north-east. My site visit confirmed council's submission that this fall continues in a northly direction and generally aligns with Kennett Street. In this slope condition the proposal results in a building form at the northern corner juncture of the review site that reaches a height of 12.7m. Council says this is commensurate with the height of a standard four storey building. I find this is a significant building height that will be introduced into a relatively low scale character setting in this part of Kennett Street. I find this will be a visually jarring element.
For the reasons discussed above, I also find that important canopy tree screening of this building form will be problematic, as larger canopy trees required for screening purposes cannot be realised in the proposed landscape setbacks due to the lack of deep soil capacity.
[60]
Will the proposal result in any unacceptable amenity impacts?
[61]
I have already made findings in regard to the amenity impacts and appropriate transitioning of building form that is required to address privacy and overlooking concerns into the SPOS of the residential dwelling at 7 Kennett Street.
Council and the respondents also raised additional amenity concerns regarding potential overshadowing and overlooking.
Regarding overlooking concerns from future occupants at the upper level of the new building into the SPOS of 7 Kennet Street. I am satisfied this can be appropriately addressed in a manner shown in the revised northern profile shown of the substituted plans as submitted by the applicant (i.e. introduction of terrace and planter box form). However, I consider further screening treatment may be required as part of any redesign of the proposal.
Reviewing the shadow diagrams provided by the applicant, I am also satisfied that the property at 7 Kennett Street will not receive any further shadowing of its SPOS arising from the proposal. Nevertheless, this matter will need to be reconsidered as part of any redesign if this is pursued by the applicant.
I am also satisfied that the proposed hours of use for the medical centre are satisfactory. I also agree with the applicant that these hours need to be considered in the context of and be compatible with the surrounding commercial I zone uses. I find these times are appropriate.
The substituted plans also indicate the bin storage area has been relocated from the Kennett Street frontage to an enclosed area accessed from the RoW. Council considers this change is positive. I agree.
I also note that plant and equipment shown in the substituted plans will sit within a revised roof form and located approximately 15.0m from the sensitive northern interface. Before this is finalised, it would be appropriate for some preliminary acoustic assessment of this plant to be undertaken and submitted with any new application. I note the applicant agreed to the need for some acoustic testing to take place during discussion on draft conditions.
Council also raised some visual concerns regarding the business sign proposed on the subject building. I note the review site is located in Category 3 of clause 52.05 (High amenity areas). The applicant has reduced the size of the subject sign in the substituted plans to 3sqm, and the sign will now be located in the south-west corner of the site. This is close to the bus stop and associated road signage. I find this would be an acceptable planning outcome.
[62]
Is parking and traffic movement generated by the proposal acceptable?
[63]
The key traffic and parking matters associated with the proposal are described in the Evidence Statement of Mr Safi and provided below.
It is proposed that up to 14 practitioners will be on site at any one time to provide specialist medical services from the facility.[7]
The operating hours of the proposed medical centre will be 8am-6pm on weekdays and 8am-1pm on Saturdays.
It is proposed to provide a total of 38 car parking spaces on site, including 29 parking spaces on the basement level (including one accessible car space) and nine ground level parking spaces.
Vehicle access to the basement car park will be via a 6.1m crossover to Kennett Street.
Vehicle access to the ground-level parking spaces is proposed via the unnamed ROW.
Six bicycle rails (i.e. 12 bicycle parking spaces) are proposed within the High Street Road frontage, adjacent to the main entrance.
The applicant relies on the traffic evidence of Mr Safi. A waiver of three on-site car spaces is sought by the applicant. This waiver is supported by Mr Safi.
It is Mr Safi's opinion that:
The traffic generated by the proposal will not detrimentally impact on the operation of the local road network;
The waiver of three car spaces is supported having regard to the car parking demand assessment in combination with the empirical assessment number and adequacy of the parking supply.
The layout of the car parking arrangements is compliant and acceptable.
Loading and Waste collection arrangements are satisfactory.
Council does not agree with the applicant and the evidence of Mr Safi. It remains concerned with the proposed parking and traffic movements that will be generated by the proposal. Its concerns are supported by its traffic engineers who advised:
The shortfall of car parking would unreasonably impact the local street network. Kennett Street has but a small supply of car parking available which is already subject to heavy demand. The proposed shortfall would undoubtedly spill over into Kennett Street (especially given limitations to car parking on High Street Road) - and may fully-saturate available parking spaces. This is not a fair impost.
[64]
Existing traffic and parking conditions in the area are an important consideration in my assessment of parking and traffic submissions from the parties. These conditions include:
Traffic at the intersection of Kennett Street and High Street Road is restricted to left turns only into High Street Road (no right turns into or out of the street).
On-street parking is prohibited on the northern side of High Street Road adjacent the subject site. East of Kennett Street, on-street parking is also restricted by a Clearway 4pm- 6:30pm Monday-Friday.
Kennett Street has a relatively narrow pavement width and concerns have been raised regarding safe passing between two vehicles using the street with on-street parking occurring.
The unnamed RoW is not restricted by travel direction. However, this RoW services a number of commercial premises along its length for deliveries, unloading/loading and staff parking.
Having reviewed the evidence of Mr Safi, I have not been persuaded that the comparative medical centre in Toorak is a useful comparative tool to establish a realistic parking demand rate for the proposal on the review site. I note that Mr Safi estimates this to be 2.7 spaces required per practitioner.
This finding is based on the following concerns:
The different traffic conditions that exist in and around the review site (as described above) in comparison to the traffic conditions experienced around the Toorak medical centre;
the provision of public transport options (buses, trams and trains) that services the medical centre in Toorak. The review site does not have this range of public transport options. I consider this will impact the parking demand rate between the two sites; and
the increased number of practitioners (up to 14 practitioners) that are proposed on the review site - in comparison to the reduced number of practitioners (up to nine) using the medical centre in Toorak.
In this context, I am concerned that the parking demand analysis undertaken by Mr Safi for this proposal, may have underestimated parking demand that will be generated by the proposal. This concern takes into account the challenging road conditions in Kennett Street and around the review site in the local street network. I am concerned this could lead to additional pressure on street parking access and extra traffic movement in Kennett Street. Council's traffic engineers have identified that Kennett Street already experiences considerable parking pressure and high occupancy rates during peak times of the day.
[65]
For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No permit is granted.
[66]
[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.
[3] The proposal satisfies the underlined condition in the GRZ3. However, the gross floor area and parking requirements under clause 52.06 are not met.
[69]
[4] The applicant circulated a landscape plan prepared by Habitat Landscape Environmental Design Consultants which was considered by the parties during the hearing.
[6] Paragraph 40 of the applicant's written submission.
[72]
[7] The original application sought approval for 16 practitioners. At the hearing, the applicant advised it would accept a reduction of practitioners down to 14 should the Tribunal support this change.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
ZC Wood Pty Ltd
Respondent/Defendant:
Monash CC [2025] VCAT 1078
Legislation Cited (1)
Environment Act 1987
Cases Cited (1)
ZC Wood Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2025] VCAT 1078 (5 December 2025)
AI Analysis
Outcomerespondent
Disposition:
The Tribunal affirmed the decision of Monash City Council and ordered that no planning permit be granted for TPA/56395 (ZC Wood Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2025] VCAT 1078, Order dated 5 December 2025).
Ms Jayasekara agreed with Mr Stafford that the Riversdale Road site used by Mr Safi was not suitable for comparison purposes, particularly given the different physical setting and street network around the review site. Firstly, she observed that the Riversdale Road site was better served by public transport options. Noting the site was connected to nearby rail stations, trams and buses.
Secondly, Ms Jayasekara highlighted the Riversdale Road site was located on a major intersection and was not restricted to particular turns, as was the Kennett Street site. She also agreed with Mr Sutton that the side street associated with the Riversdale Road site (Kasouka Road) was wider, with parking capacity on both sides that also enabled two vehicles to safely pass each other (she had confirmed this by her site visit).
Ms Jayasekara submits that as a result of these physical differences, Mr Safi has underestimated the parking demand that would arise for the Kennett Street site. As such, Ms Jayasekara submits the proposal will result in overflow parking into the surrounding residential streets to the detriment of residents in those streets.
The applicant continues to rely on the traffic evidence of Mr Safi and the written and oral submissions the applicant provided at the hearing. The applicant also acknowledged the need to provide a compliant acoustic response to Mr Stafford's dwelling, should a permit be issued for the proposal.
I have considered these submissions in my Key Issues below.
Decision guidelines in the GRZ3 also involve an assessment of appropriate built form transition, robustness of materials and finishes and consideration of the location, quantity and vegetation to be provided as part of a new development.
While I accept the applicant's submission that a medical centre proposal will have some defining building elements that will not reflect typical residential built form sought in the GRZ3, the preferred physical character setting of the subject land where a non-residential use and development is to be sited, remains an important policy outcome to be achieved.
This means the new development must also respond to and address the key policy objectives associated with Garden City Character. Importantly, this includes the new development responding to the corresponding landscape character objectives and policy settings I have highlighted above. In my view, appropriate balancing of these policy settings is paramount to ensure the proposal satisfies its strategic planning setting.
My assessment of the proposal in this context follows.
While I accept the GRZ3 enables up to three storey form, objectives in the zone also seek to ensure that new built form effectively transitions to existing adjoining built form. I find the design has not achieved a satisfactory transition.
I acknowledge the revised design has sought to address some building transition through the introduction of a recessed upper level and planter box/roof terrace at the 3rd level. However, I find this treatment is insufficient on its own right to create an effective transition form to the single storey dwelling at 7 Kennett Street.
The applicant pointed out that the updated landscape plan circulated at the hearing included opportunity for up to 10 trees on the site that will be 9.0m+ in height. These trees will be included with a 'range of screen planting treatment to the northern boundary. For the reasons outlined above, I am not persuaded this proposed landscape treatment is sufficient to provide an effective and satisfactory screening feature or help enable an effective transition of building form at this sensitive interface.
I would also acknowledge there are other positive design responses arising from the substituted plans. These include:
Lowering the overall building height by reducing the finished floor level of the basement. Albeit I consider this should have occurred in conjunction with a commensurate reduction in the envelope size of the basement and lowering of building height to the northern interface for the reasons discussed above.
Accessible ramp & steps introduced at the south-west site entry.
Increasing various setbacks at level 2 (north, south and east boundaries).
Lemon Scented Gum proposed in the north-eastern part of the site.
Relocation of the proposed bin store from the Kennett Street frontage.
Council also submitted that it preferred the retention of the two canopy trees on the subject land (Ginkgo biloba and Waterhousea Floribunda). Given my comments above that require a redesign of various elements of the proposal, I do not make any findings on this submission. As a general principle the removal of a healthy canopy tree that is performing well should not be considered lightly. However, this matter will need to be considered in any redesign of the proposal that may be undertaken by the applicant.
For the reasons stated above, I find the current design response is not consistent with relevant zone purposes in the GRZ3 and associated clause objectives at 13.07-1L-01, 15.01-1L-2 and 15.01-5L, that seek to maintain and enhance the existing and preferred landscape character and Garden City Character.
The use of the right-of-way for car parking raises concerns in that it may impact upon loading for tenancies fronting Warrigal Road. Those properties have no option but to utilise the ROW given no other access exists and Warrigal Road is constrained.
Given both the ROW is one way (southbound) and Kennett Street are left turn in / left turn out, cars may be directed toward the residential hinterland to park and access the site. This may place additional pressure on nearby local roads including Closter Avenue, Morris Street and Harold Street.
The respondents agree with council's concerns. They are particularly concerned with the traffic movement impacts they say will result from the proposal. They do not support the waiver of three car spaces sought by the applicant and say this will lead to further parking pressure in Kennett Street, to the detriment of existing residents in this street.
The respondents submit the proposed basement parking and access to the basement from Kennett Street is problematic. Particularly given the restricted vehicle turning movements in play at the existing intersection of Kennett Street and High Street Road and the existing parking restrictions and narrow road width that exist in Kennett Street.
I have also outlined above, concerns expressed by some of the respondents regarding the parking demand analysis undertaken by Mr Safi. The respondents say the use of a comparative medical centre in Toorak to determine parking demand for the proposal on the review site is ill founded and should not be relied upon.
While I accept Mr Safi's parking surveys that show there is some on-street parking capacity in the local street network, he also conceded that '.... I consider that the frequent use of residential street parking by patrons of the nearby non-residential developments is not a good traffic engineering or planning outcome.' Additionally, he also acknowledged that some short term parking in Kennett Street by visitors to the proposed development could occur. It was his opinion this is '.... likely be infrequent and of limited impact.'
Council's traffic engineers remain concerned that the current parking arrangements in this area could lead to '.... illegal vehicle entry from High Street Road, contravening the existing No Entry signage.' I noted during my site visit that vehicle access into the unnamed RoW is only permitted southbound from Closter Avenue, with exits limited to a left turn at High Street Road'. Council also confirmed at the hearing that the unnamed RoW was not restricted to one way traffic flow. Council's traffic engineers say this traffic treatment may 'significantly deter' use of the designated staff parking spaces to be accessed from the unnamed RoW. It is clear from these traffic measures that existing parking and traffic movement in this area is becoming a challenge to manage effectively.
My site inspection confirmed that Kennett Street has a narrow street pavement width and is subject to 'No Stopping' restrictions (8am-6pm Mon-Fri, 8am-1pm Sat) on the west side between Closter Avenue and High Street Road. This restriction is presumably applied to maintain safe and efficient traffic flow. Traffic movements at the intersection of High Street Road and Kennett Street are also restricted for similar reasons.
Based on my concerns regarding the parking demand rate estimated by Mr Safi, I find the proposal would lead to additional and adverse street parking and extra vehicle movements into the local residential street network. I say this noting the proposal is already seeking a waiver of three on-site parking spaces.
In making this finding, I have given weight to the concerns raised by council's traffic engineers, who have intimate local knowledge of the existing traffic conditions in this area. I have also considered my observations of the parking restrictions and traffic movement restrictions in Kennett Street and at the physical condition of the intersection of High Street Road and Kennett Street.
In the physical setting and traffic measures I observed, I would not support any waiver of car parking spaces arising from this proposal. I am concerned this waiver would lead to further parking pressure and extra traffic movements into the local residential street network. I am also concerned that this demand for additional on-street parking by a commercial/non-residential use in this location will lead to further adverse amenity impacts on existing residents in Kennett Street.
I find the proposed reduction in parking sought by the proposal (waiver of three spaces) under clause 52.06 is inappropriate and will lead to adverse parking and traffic movement in nearby streets, thereby adversely impacting the amenity of residential properties located in these streets.
I also need to comment on the proposed waste collection associated with the proposal. While the applicant provided an alternative arrangement and location for this activity, I consider this matter will need to be re-assessed as part of any new application that may be lodged by the applicant.
I also note that the location and number of at-grade staff parking spaces proposed within the unnamed RoW (nine spaces) remains problematic for council. I agree with these concerns. I find the location and use of this at-grade parking could lead to further traffic and pedestrian conflict with existing loading and unloading activities from existing commercial properties in the RoW. I consider this matter will also require re-assessment as part of any new application that may be lodged by the applicant.