VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P160/2024
Permit Application no.2023/245 	

Applicant	KPD Developments Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Latrobe City Council	
Referral Authority	Head, Transport for Victoria	

SUBJECT LAND	182-186 Princes Street
TRARALGON VIC 3844	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	26 August 2024	

DATE OF ORDER	25 October 2024	

CITATION	KPD Developments Pty Ltd v Latrobe CC [2024] VCAT 1023	

Order
Hearing day vacated
1	The hearing day on 27 August 2024 is vacated.
Amend permit application 
2	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, (Vic) the permit application is amended to include the display of business identification including promotional signage.
3	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, (Vic) the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans and document filed with the Tribunal:
•	Prepared by:	SMB Design and Construction	
•	Drawing numbers:	Job Number 211123, Plans PP1 – PP5 (incl.)	
•	Dated:	26 June 2024	
•	Acoustic report, prepared by Waveform Acoustics, Final Report, Revision B, dated 3 July 2024.	
Permit granted
4	In application P160/2024 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
5	In planning permit application 2023/245 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 182 - 186 Princes Street Traralgon VIC 3844 in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Use and Development of land for a Service Station in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 4. 
•	Creation of access to a Transport Road Zone 2; and 
•	Display of business identification, electronic, promotion and internally illuminated signage under clause 52.05

Peter Gaschk
Member			

Appearances
For KPD Developments Pty Ltd	Jeff Gower, Town Planner with Beveridge Williams Consultants
James Lamb, Director	
For Latrobe City Council	Nick Sissons, Solicitor with Russell Kennedy, Lawyers	
For Head, Transport for Victoria	No appearance	

Information
Description of proposal	Use and development of the subject land at 182-186 Princes Street, Traralgon (‘review site’) for a Service Station, creation of access to a Transport Road Zone 2, and display of business identification and internally illuminated signage.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Latrobe Planning Scheme (‘Scheme’)	
Zone and overlays	Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 4 (‘NRZ4’)
Design and Development Overlay, Schedule 10 - Latrobe Regional Airport - Obstacle Height Area No.3 (‘DDO10’)	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.09-2: Use of the subject land for a Service Station (Section 2 use in the Table of uses in the NRZ4).
Clause 32.09-10: To construct a building and to construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 use in the Table of uses in the NRZ4).
Clause 52.05-13: To construct and display a business identification sign, internally illuminated sign, electronic sign under 3.0sqm in area and a promotional sign under 3.0sqm in area.
Clause 52.29-2: To alter an access to a road in a Transport Road Zone 2 (‘TRZ2’).	
Key scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 02.03-6, 11.01-1R, 11.01-1L, 11.03-1L, 11.03-2L, 13.07-1S, 15.01-1S, 15.01-2S, 15.01-2L, 16.01-1L, 17.02-1S, 17.02-2S, 32.09, 43.02, 52.05, 52.29, 65.01, 71.02 and 73.02.   	
Land description	The review site is identified in Plan of Consolidation PC381342F (certificate of title Volume 12387 Folio 979). There are no title covenants or easements that impact the proposal.
The site is approximately 2,997sqm in area, with a frontage of 62.4m to Princes Street (Highway) on the southern boundary.  The site has a ‘trapezoid’ shape, approximately 41.8m deep and a rear boundary of 80.6m. The eastern boundary is 45.6m.
The site has been cleared and is currently vacant.  It has been formerly used and developed with an older service station which was demolished and removed in mid to late 2021.
To the south of the site is Princes Street, being the main arterial road (highway) connecting Melbourne with Gippsland.  Princes Street consists of four lanes, with two lanes in each direction, separated by a central grass median.  There is no median break directly opposite the review site.  The road is zoned Transport Road Zone, Schedule 2 (‘TRZ2’).
To the east of the review site is a single level building containing the Latrobe Veterinary Group veterinary clinic, offering veterinary services to residents.  The veterinary clinic was developed circa 2013.
To the north and west of the review site are single level residential dwellings, being Nos. 19-27 Armstrong Court to the north and No. 190 Princes Street to the west.  
The site is approximately 1.5km west of the Traralgon Primary Activity Centre (‘TPAC’). 	
Tribunal inspection	Unaccompanied on 16 September 2024.   	

  Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	This review relates to an application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) (‘P&E Act’) by KPD Developments Pty Ltd (‘applicant’) against Council’s refusal to grant a planning permit (No. 2023/245) for the use and development of a Service Station in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 4 (‘NRZ4’), creation of access to a Transport Zone 2 (‘TRZ2’), and display of business identification, electronic, promotion and internally illuminated signage (‘the proposal’) on the subject land at 182-186 Princes Street, Traralgon (‘review site’).
2	Council submits:
•	The proposed use and development is inconsistent with the purpose and decision guidelines of the NRZ4.
•	The proposal is not compatible with the existing residential uses through the scale and intensity of the proposal and will not predominantly service local community need.
•	The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives and policy of clause 13.07-1S (Land Use Compatibility).
•	The proposal is inconsistent with clause 11.01-1L (Traralgon Structure Plan) as it proposes a use with significant economic impact that will be located outside the Traralgon Primary Activity Centre (TPAC).
•	The proposed use and development has the potential to adversely affect human health, the amenity of the area and the orderly planning of the area.
3	Council is also concerned that some of the proposed signage (identified as signs S01, S04 and S05 on the Elevations Plan and Signage Plan) exceed the requirements specified for these signs under the Scheme and may therefore be prohibited in the NRZ4.
4	The applicant does not agree with Council and submits the amended proposal responds appropriately to the lower scale neighbourhood context by containing the proposal to a modest single storey design form.  The applicant also says the streetscape appearance and character setting of the proposal on the review site will be enhanced through landscaping treatment, generous setbacks and sensitive location and treatment of built form and signage on the site.  
5	The applicant also submits that amenity impacts, including noise impacts to existing residential properties to the north and west, can be effectively ameliorated through the location of acoustic fencing on sensitive site boundaries.  It relies on the acoustic report prepared by Waveform Acoustics, dated 3 July 2024.  
6	The applicant is also satisfied the type, location and scale of proposed signage on the site is permissible and appropriate to the NRZ4 and is consistent with relevant purposes and decision guidelines in clause 52.05.  
7	The applicant also notes the proposal has not raised any concerns with the relevant road authority (Head, Transport for Victoria) regarding access to Princes Street.  
Procedural matters
Substitution of amended plans and permit application description 
8	On 2 July 2024, the applicant circulated amendments to the application upon which it wished to rely for the purpose of these proceedings.  The amendments included a change to the definition of some of the proposed signs, reduction in hours of operation and inclusion of details for an acoustic fence proposed along the site’s north, east (part) and west boundaries (see Appendix – Site Plan in the acoustic report prepared by Waveform Acoustics).  The submissions from the parties are based on these amendments (now substituted as the application plans under order 2 above).
9	I am satisfied the amended plans prepared by SMB Design, Construction, Job No. 211123, dated 26/6/24, drawing numbers PP1-PP5, were appropriately circulated by the applicant prior to the hearing in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Note PNPE9.  The applicant also sought to substitute an amended acoustic report, prepared by Waveform Acoustics, Final Report, Rev B dated 3/7/24.
10	Subject to clarification regarding some signage details that were discussed in detail during the hearing, Council did not oppose the substitution of the amended plans and acoustic report.  I discuss signage under Other Matters below.  
11	This order confirms the substitution of these plans and acoustic report.  The hearing proceeded on that basis.
12	Consistent with my findings regarding proposed signage that forms part of the permit application, my order (order 2) has also amended the permit application description to include promotional signage that complies with clauses 52.05 and 72.03 of the Scheme (see Other Matters below). 
Amended proposal
13	The key features of the amended proposal (as shown in the substituted plans) were detailed in the Council’s written submission.  An extract of that is provided below:
(a)	The service station building would be located in the north-east (rear) of the site, set back 14.5 metres from the front (southern) boundary.
(b)	The service station building would have a maximum height of 4.45 metres and a floor area of 260m2. A service yard and bin enclosure are located to the north of the building 2.95 m away from the shared residential boundary.
(c)	The forecourt and canopy would be located in the middle of the site and would contain seven double sided bowsers with an ability to service up to 14 vehicles at one time. The canopy would have a ground clearance to the underside of 5.5 metres and have an overall height of 6.4 m.
(d)	Nine car parking spaces would be provided in the west of the site abutting the western boundary, and 4 of which are nominated as EV charging points. A further 6 spaces are located directly in front of the shop building, including one DDA space.
(e)	A total of 15 car parking spaces across the Subject Land with a further 14 spaces located under the refuelling canopy, resulting in a total of 31 spaces available on site.
(f)	Access to the site would be via two new crossovers from Princes Street, located at either end of the Subject Land’s frontage.
(g)	Signage is proposed to consist of:
(i)	A business identification sign located on the service station building.
(ii)	3 business identification signs on the canopy.
(iii)	An illuminated panel sign that is 4.83m by 2.06m in dimension, containing illuminated signs, being a business identification signs, promotional signs and an electronic display sign showing the price of fuel.
(iv)	Two non-illuminated promotional signs being 4.45m by 3.2m on the corner of the building closest to Princes Street.
(v)	Illuminated canopy island spreaders.
(h)	The initial proposal was for operation 24 hours, 7 days a week. The Amended application proposes operations from 5 am to midnight, 7 days a week.
14	The amended site layout, elevation plan and signage plan is shown below.

Figure 1: Amended Site Layout and Elevation Plans – Source: Substituted Plans
15	Following consideration of the amended plans (above) Council amended its grounds of refusal as follows:
1	The proposed use and development are inconsistent with the purpose and decision guidelines of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 4) as it is not compatible with the existing residential uses through the scale and intensity of the proposal and will not predominantly service local community need; and
2	The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives and policy of Clause 13.07-1S (Land Use Compatibility) as the use and development of land for a service station of the proposed scale is not compatible with adjoining and nearby residential land uses; and
3	The proposal is inconsistent with the strategies with Clause 11.01-1L (Traralgon Structure Plan) as it proposes a use with significant economic impact that will be located outside the Traralgon Primary Activity Centre (TTSP Area 3), Argyle Street (TTSP Area 4) and Princes Highway and Stammers Road (TTSP Area 5); and
4		The proposal is not consistent with Clause 65.01 (approval of an application or plan) as the proposed use and development has the potential to affect human health, the amenity of the area and the orderly planning of the area.
Site address
16	During the hearing the applicant also indicated the site address may include land at No. 188 Princes Street.  I was not provided with any specific documentation or current title details to verify this.  The applicant did not seek to amend the permit application details in this regard.  
17	I note council’s submission specifies the review site is described on Title Vol.12387 Fol. 979, Plan of Consolidation 381342F, address No. 182 Princes Street, Traralgon.  
18	I am content to maintain the site description as provided in the applicant’s original application (described above) and identified by the subject title and substituted plans.
Referrals
19	Council referred the proposal to the following internal and external bodies.  I note these referrals did not result in objection to the proposal.
•	Head, Transport for Victoria – No objection subject to conditions.
•	Environmental Protection Authority – No objection or conditions.
•	Gippsland Water – No objection subject to condition.
•	Council’s Strategic Planning – No objection.
•	Council’s Health Services – No objection subject to conditions.
•	Council’s Infrastructure Services – No objection subject to conditions.
Amendment C132latr  
20	Amendment C132latr (gazetted 29 August 2024) seeks to address various technical errors to planning controls within the Latrobe Planning Scheme (‘Scheme’).  The gazettal occurred after the completion of this proceeding.  I note most of the changes affect residential zoned land within Latrobe.  This includes the review site.  The amendment also makes changes to schedules to ensure accuracy to the schedule purpose and corrects minor administrative errors.
21	Having reviewed the amendment, I am satisfied it does not change the current zone controls and associated policy that applies to the review site and were relied upon by the parties through their written submissions.  Consequently, I have not sought further submissions from the parties on this matter.
What are the key issues?
22	Having considered the submissions and supporting documentation provided by the parties, the key issues can be considered under the themes of land use zoning and strategic planning policy, neighbourhood character, landscaping and built form and amenity (noise).  These can be expressed as:
•	Does the proposal respond appropriately to the NRZ4 and planning policy framework?
•	Will the proposal achieve an acceptable character and landscape outcome and provide an appropriate built form response in the NRZ4?
•	Has the proposal responded appropriately to amenity impacts?
23	Subject to appropriate permit conditions I find that the proposal will provide a satisfactory planning outcome as sought in the NRZ4 and associated planning policy under the Scheme.
24	My reasons follow. 
planning policy framework
Zoning and overlay controls
25	As noted above the review site is in a NRZ4.  A zoning map is provided below.  The review site is marked in dashed blue line.

Figure 2: Zoning Map – Source: Council written submission
26	The relevant purposes of the NRZ include:
...
•	To recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development.
•	To manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics.
•	To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.
(Tribunal emphasis added)
27	Relevant neighbourhood character objectives under the NRZ4 include:
•	To reinforce a spacious regional suburban character of existing and new neighbourhoods by providing generous front and side building setbacks and landscaped front setbacks with canopy trees.
•	To minimise the prominence of buildings within the streetscape by setting back upper levels of buildings and siting garages and carports behind the front façade.
•	To encourage walls on boundaries to be setback from the building façade to provide space for landscaping, building articulation and appearance of space between dwellings.
(Tribunal emphasis added)
28	Clause 52.05 is relevant in the assessment of business and promotional signage that forms part of the proposal.
29	The review site is also affected by the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 10 (Latrobe Regional Airport - Obstacle Height Area No.3) (DDO10).  As noted above, a permit is not required under clause 43.02-2 (DDO10) as the development is less than 10m in height.
Planning Policy Framework
30	I have provided a list of key planning policies that are relevant to this matter in the information section above.  I do not intend to summarise these here.  Council and the applicant provided a detailed analysis of these policies in their written and oral submissions.  
31	I have considered these policies in my assessment of the proposal before me (as discussed under Key Issues below).
key issues
Does the proposal respond appropriately to the NRZ4 and planning policy framework?
32	Council submits the NRZ4 does not encourage use of the subject land as a Service Station.  Council says the development is a ‘commercial’ use in a sensitive residential area and will not service local community need.  
33	Further, (as outlined in its revised grounds of refusal) Council says the proposal fails to satisfy the Municipal Planning Strategy and relevant Planning Policy Framework, including clauses: 
•	11.01-1R (Settlement Gippsland) 
•	11.01-1L (Latrobe settlement patterns) 
•	11.01-1L (Traralgon) 
•	11.03-1L (Activity Centres)
•	11.03-2L (Morwell to Traralgon Structure Plan) and: 
•	17.02-2S (Out of centre development)
34	The applicant does not agree with this assessment and notes the key conditions placed on use of the land for a service station at clause 32.09-2 have been met; in that the review site has sole access to a road in the TRZ2 and the overall site area is below 3000sqm.
35	The applicant submits that service stations are ‘commonly found’ in residential settings, are ‘not prohibited uses’ in the NRZ4 and do provide for ‘some local community need’ through the sale of fuel and convenience goods.  The applicant notes there is ‘sparse provision of milk bars and local convenience shopping on the west side of Traralgon.’  Given this setting the applicant says the convenience shopping available within the proposed kiosk will help serve local shopping needs.
36	The applicant also submits the amendment to reduce the proposed hours of use from a 24 hour operation, together with a modest single storey built form and proposed landscape treatment on the review site ensure a positive outcome for this use in this location of Traralgon.
37	The applicant also notes the acoustic assessment carried out by Wave Acoustic supports the use.  Subject to the inclusion of an acoustic fence to be provided along the western, northern and part of the eastern boundaries and other management measures outlined in that report.
My findings
38	I am satisfied the proposed use, combined with the amended reduced operating hours, acoustic fencing and landscape treatment along sensitive residential interfaces, will provide a satisfactory planning outcome on the review site.
39	While I acknowledge Council’s submission that the key purposes in the NRZ4 are to accommodate residential purposes, other non-residential uses are permissible subject to a permit, as specified in the land use table found in the NRZ4.  Service Stations falls within this category.  
40	I have not been persuaded by Council’s proposition that the proposed use will undermine the integrity and application of clause 11.01-1L (Traralgon Structure Plan) despite the proposed use being located outside the Traralgon Primary Activity Centre (TTSP Area 3).  I was not provided with sufficient economic data and growth trend analysis that would support this conclusion.  Nor have I been persuaded the proposal will adversely impact housing objectives found at clauses 11.01-1L, 11.03-1L, 11.03-2L 16.01-1L and 17.02-2S.  
41	I find the proposal is modest and appropriate in scale to ensure these housing policy settings are not undermined.  It is also relevant in my consideration of this matter that the subject land has been previously used for service station purposes and there is limited convenience shopping opportunity available in this part of Traralgon.  This was confirmed by my wider site visit. I have given this weight in my findings.   
42	I also agree with the applicant that service stations can be found appropriately operating in residential settings throughout Melbourne and regional centres.  During my wider site visit of the area, I confirmed other service stations that were located outside the main activity centre of Traralgon.
43	Clause 17.02-2S (Out of centre development) also seeks to:
Ensure that out-of-centre proposals are only considered where the proposed use or development is of net benefit to the community in the region served by the proposal or provides small scale shopping opportunities that meet the needs of local residents and workers in convenient locations.
(Tribunal emphasis added)
44	I am satisfied the proposal will result in net benefit to the community in this region, as the scale and uses proposed on the review site, including petrol sales, coffee and convenience shopping offered on site, will enable appropriate opportunity for ‘small scale shopping… that meets the needs of residents and workers’ residing in this part of Traralgon.  While I accept the ‘café’ component may be targeted to engage with passing motorist needs, I also find the presence of the café use and convenience goods will offer opportunities for local community use. 
45	As set out and for the reasons above, I am satisfied the proposal responds appropriately to the NRZ4 and relevant planning policy framework under the Scheme.
Will the proposal achieve an acceptable character and landscape outcome and provide an appropriate built form response in the NRZ4? 
Neighbourhood Character Objectives
46	Relevant character objectives to be considered for the proposal in the NRZ4 include:
•	To reinforce a spacious regional suburban character of existing and new neighbourhoods by providing generous front and side building setbacks and landscaped front setbacks with canopy trees.
•	To minimise the prominence of buildings within the streetscape by setting back upper levels of buildings and siting garages and carports behind the front façade.
•	To encourage walls on boundaries to be setback from the building façade to provide space for landscaping, building articulation and appearance of space between dwellings.
(Tribunal emphasis added)
47	Regarding urban design clause 15.01-1S seeks:
To create urban environments that are safe, healthy, functional and enjoyable and that contribute to a sense of place and cultural identity.
Clause 15.01-2S also seeks:
To achieve building design and siting outcomes that contribute positively to the local context, enhance the public realm and support environmentally sustainable development.
48	Council submits the non-residential use of the subject land, combined with its built form and signage ‘will adversely dominate the streetscape.’  Council is particularly concerned with the forecourt canopy that it says is excessive and will dominate the visual appearance of the review site to the main highway setting.  It also says the proposed signage will result in excessive illumination of the site, being ‘in stark contrast’ to the current conditions of the surrounding residential dwellings.
49	Council also submits the design of the built form is ‘mundane’ in appearance and considers the design to be a ‘cookie cutter’ approach with little context to the site.  Council is also concerned the landscape response to the site’s frontage is inconsistent with the character of the neighbourhood and fails to include meaningful canopy trees.
50	The applicant does not agree and submits the design response has achieved an appropriate ‘quality interface’ that addresses street activation, surveillance and accessibility from Princes Street, while incorporating appropriate landscape treatment to the front and side/rear boundaries.
51	The applicant’s written submission has included an assessment against Council’s adopted Latrobe City Council Urban Design Guidelines 2021 (‘Guidelines’).  The applicant concludes the single storey form, pedestrian and vehicular access from Princes Street, onsite carparking, signage and the inclusion of landscaped setbacks to front, rear and sides is consistent with the Guidelines.
My findings
52	I accept the design of the kiosk is ‘utilitarian’ in style and appearance.  However, I find its location towards the eastern boundary and set back approximately 14.5m from Princes Street, has been sensitively designed and importantly, seeks to align with the adjoining vet building fronting Princes Street (178-180 Princes Street).  
53	I find the single storey building form has appropriately responded to the dominate lower built form that surrounds the three sensitive boundaries of the review site.  Notations on the amended Site Layout Plan also indicate that no plant or equipment associated with the service station use is to be installed on the roof of the proposed single storey kiosk building.  I support this design approach.
54	I acknowledge the proposed canopy form will be higher than the kiosk building by some 2.0m (kiosk fascia at 4.4m and canopy structure at 6.4m).  However, I am satisfied the open appearance of the canopy to the street frontage and surrounds will ensure it does not present as a dominant visual presence to Princes Highway.
55	Opportunity for landscaping is also provided along the sensitive residential interfaces of the review site.  Importantly, provision is also made for larger landscape setbacks along parts of the western interface in front of habitable room windows of the dwelling at 190 Princes Highway.  A clear Perspex (acoustically treated) is also recommended in this section of the proposed acoustic fence to enable appropriate daylight into these windows.  I support this recommendation and note this has been notated on the substituted plans.  
56	A minimum 3.0m wide landscape setback is also provided along the entire northern interface with dwellings facing Armstrong Court.  This width will enable opportunity for some meaningful ‘mid-sized’ canopy planting combined with understorey vegetation planting.  
57	Draft conditions require submission of a landscape plan to be approved by the responsible authority.  I support this condition. Council will have an opportunity to consider appropriately sized canopy tree planting in the wider sections of the proposed landscape beds on the review site.  
58	I find the boundary interface along the eastern boundary is more problematic.  Its shape is triangular, largely due to the orientation and location of the kiosk building.  However, I note the northern boundary of this triangle is up to 12.0m in length.  This will offer some useful opportunity for planting treatment in this portion of the landscape bed.
59	I agree with Council that the front landscape treatment is more minimalist in design.  However, this setback has sought to accommodate the existing vehicular crossovers to Princes Street (the crossovers will require some further widening and re-alignment) and will include important petrol cost signage to motorists, as well as depicting other convenience goods available from the kiosk.  
60	Significantly, on either side of the proposed vehicular crossovers, the design response has provided a larger splayed landscape setback.  I find this is appropriate and will offer some opportunity for smaller sized tree planting to help off-set the landscape limitations in this garden bed. 
61	I am satisfied that draft conditions 18 and 19 of the planning permit (see Appendix A of this decision) will enable Council to approve the final type and height of landscape treatment in these landscape areas.  I support these conditions.
62	On balance, I find the proposal will achieve an acceptable character and landscape outcome and provides an appropriate built form response in the NRZ4 and to the adjoining sensitive residential interfaces. 
63	I deal with proposed signage under separate heading below.
Has the proposal responded appropriately to amenity impacts?
Amenity Impacts
64	The applicant submits the proposed use (amongst other relevant decision guidelines that apply) must also to be considered against clause 13.07-1S (Land use compatibility).  Council has also maintained this ground in its amended grounds of refusal (Ground 2).  
65	I agree clause 13.07-1S is relevant and forms an important consideration to ensure any adverse amenity impacts associated with the proposal are appropriately managed on and off the site.
66	I say this noting the Scheme does not include specific local policy that directs detailed assessment of ‘non-residential’ uses in residential zoned areas.  Given the absence of such local policy, consideration of the key objective and relevant strategies on land use compatibility and amenity impacts as set out in clause 13.07-1S are important.  
67	The objective of clause 13.07-1S seeks:
To protect community amenity, human health and safety while facilitating appropriate commercial, industrial, infrastructure or other uses with potential adverse off-site impacts.
68	Specific strategies in this clause also seek to:
•	Ensure that use or development of land is compatible with adjoining and nearby land uses.
•	Avoid locating incompatible uses in areas that may be impacted by adverse off-site impacts from commercial, industrial and other uses.
•	Avoid or otherwise minimise adverse off-site impacts from commercial, industrial and other uses through land use separation, siting, building design and operational measures.
•	Protect commercial, industrial and other employment generating uses from encroachment by use or development that would compromise the ability of those uses to function safely and effectively.
(Tribunal emphasis added)
69	While Council is rightly concerned regarding the potential amenity impacts that may arise from the proposal through excessive noise to adjoining residential properties, I am satisfied the applicant has demonstrated that noise impacts can be appropriately addressed by permit conditions that include the construction and placement of appropriate acoustic fencing on these sensitive interfaces of the review site.  I have formed this view based on the analysis and recommendations arising from the Waveform Acoustic report that was updated by the applicant on 3 July 2024.  
70	I acknowledge reservations raised by Council that this acoustic report was not presented as ‘tested’ evidence.  However, I am satisfied the acoustic analysis that underpins the Waveform Acoustic report is robust and provides appropriate recommendations (including the installation of an acoustic fence along the western, northern and parts of the eastern boundaries) that in my view, will result in improved amenity conditions for the adjoining residential land uses.  
71	Importantly, this acoustic assessment will also need to be supplemented and updated as required by permit conditions (see Appendix A).  These conditions have not been contested by the applicant.  I support these conditions.  
72	During my site visit, I also observed the residential properties to the north and west have relatively low fencing (in variable conditions) along the rear of their properties.  In my view, I find they are currently exposed to significant background noise arising from vehicles using Princes Street and the train service that runs parallel to the road in question.  
73	The inclusion and combination of acoustic fencing recommended in the Waveform Acoustic report, together with well landscaped setbacks and further management restrictions on the location of plant and equipment and use of external music along these sensitive interfaces, will assist in addressing these noise sources.  I have formed this view, noting and accepting the acoustic assessment undertaken by Waveform Acoustics, that highlights the traffic along Princes Street was notable and was likely to remain the main contributor to the background noise in the area.
74	I also note the applicant has not opposed the inclusion of additional conditions that require final approval of an acoustic report to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including further acoustic assessment after six months commencement of the use.  I support these draft conditions.  
75	It is also relevant in my findings that the proposed use and site is not located within a nominated ‘buffer or separation area of any protected use with adverse off-site amenity impacts,’ that comes into play under clause 13.07-1S.
76	I am also satisfied the acoustic report prepared by Waveform Acoustics has been based on potential noise sources arising from the proposed use in accordance with the Environment Protection Authority’s (‘EPA’) publication 1826.4 noise protocols.  I note Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSR) were identified at abutting residential properties in Armstrong Court and at 190 Princes Highway and a noise logger positioned towards the rear northern boundary of the review site.  
77	Importantly, the acoustic analysis also considered and predicted noise impacts arising with the proposed use from the following sources/activities:
•	Fuel pumping
•	Vehicle noise
•	Air compressors
•	Ventilations and refrigeration units
•	Public address systems
•	Maintenance activities
•	Customer activity
78	Having considered these potential noise sources, Waveform Acoustics found that noise levels above the recommended Night Period limit of 43dB would occur beyond the boundaries of the review site without the use of acoustic fencing.  However, Waveform Acoustics found with the inclusion of an acoustic fence, night time noise from the bowsers and any idling truck would be within EPA limits during the more sensitive Night Period.
79	Given these test results, Waveform Acoustics recommended construction of a 3.0m high acoustic fence along the north, west and part of the eastern boundaries of the review site, concluding:
It is our opinion that, based on the variety of vehicle types on site and the positioning of window systems are nearby receivers, the 3m height is required. Fence to be inspected after 6 months installation to ensure no breaks or penetrations occur.
80	Waveform Acoustics also recommended all plant & equipment associated with the proposal to be at ground level and not roof mounted.  Further, no music should be played outdoors, and any music inside the service station should be played at a background level only.  I support these requirements and note they have been notated on the substituted plans.
81	Waveform Acoustics has recommended that waste collection be conducted in accordance with EPA requirements (Publication 1826.4 Noise protocols).  No waste collection will occur after 10pm, or before 7am weekdays, or before 9am and after 8pm on Saturday/Sunday.  Deliveries, including fuel deliveries are also to be conducted in accordance with the relevant EPA guidelines.  I support these controls and they have been retained on the permit conditions in Appendix A below.
My findings
82	For the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied that the potential amenity/noise impacts arising from the use of the review site as a Service Station can be appropriately ameliorated and controlled by permit conditions.  
83	I would also add that I support a condition to require additional acoustic testing six months after commencement of the use, as recommended in the Waveform Acoustic report, to ensure that the ongoing use and noise attenuation measures such as the acoustic fence, continue to operate within relevant EPA noise guidelines. 
other matters
Proposed Signage
84	The planning application proposed six signs on the review site (as shown on the Site Layout and Signage Plan).  Council raised concerns regarding the definition of the ‘price board’ sign identified as SO1, submitting it comprised several signs within one supporting structure.  
85	Following further submissions from the applicant (dated 22 August 2024) and subsequent clarification at the hearing, Council and applicant agreed this sign is not a panel sign, as it does not exceed the 10sqm of advertising area that would define the subject sign as a panel sign under the relevant definition in clause 73.02.  I also note a panel sign over 3sqm in advertising area would be prohibited in the NRZ4.
86	The applicant also clarified the proposed helio sign on the canopy fascia is to be repeated on three elevations (S02), while a further light box is to be positioned above each proposed bowser (x7 – S06). 
87	The advertising display sizes of the proposed six signs identified by the applicant are provided below:
•	Sign S01: Overall size – 2.05m x 4.83m – 9.9sqm
•	Sign S02: 3x Helios on front and side canopy – 0.64sqm
•	Sign S03: Helio on the front of kiosk building – 1.4sqm
•	Sign S04: Wall decal (‘Wild Bean Café logo and two vinyl images) facing the bowsers – 14.24sqm
•	Sign S05: Wall decal (Wild Bean Café logo and coffee image on vinyl) facing street frontage – 14.24sqm
•	Sign S06: 7x Light boxes above each petrol bowser – 1.35sqm each
Relevant planning controls
88	I note the review site is subject to Category 3 – High Amenity Areas, being in the NRZ4.  
89	Planning controls and purposes for the assessment of signs are included in clause 52.05.  Given the different types of signs proposed on the review site as part of the planning application, relevant sign definitions contained in clause 73.02 are provided below:
•	Business identification sign – defined as ‘a sign that provides business identification information about a business or industry on the land where it is displayed.’  (Note: there is no maximum display area specified for this sign within the NRZ4). 
•	Internally illuminated sign – defined as ‘a sign illuminated by internal lighting, or which contains lights or illuminated tubes arranged as an advertisement.’
•	Electronic sign – defined as ‘a sign that can be updated electronically. It includes screens broadcasting still or moving images.’
•	Promotion sign - defined as ‘a sign of less than 18sqm that promotes goods, services, an event or any other matter, whether or not provided, undertaken or sold or for hire on the land or in the building on which the sign is sited.’
•	Panel sign – defined as ‘a sign with an advertisement area exceeding 10sqm.’
90	Clause 52.05-2 also states that ‘if a sign can be interpreted in more than one way, the most restrictive requirement must be met.’  I discuss this further under my assessment of signs S04 and S05 below.
91	Key purposes to be considered under clause 52.05 include:
•	To regulate the development of land for signs and associated structures.
•	To ensure signs are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area, including the existing or desired future character.
•	To ensure signs do not contribute to excessive visual clutter or visual disorder.
•	To ensure that signs do not cause loss of amenity or adversely affect the natural or built environment or the safety, appearance or efficiency of a road.
92	Decision guidelines for the assessment of signs are included at clause 52.05-8.
Submissions by parties
93	Council maintains that while sign S01 is not considered a Panel Sign (having a display area under 10sqm) the sign contains multiple types of smaller signs that have not been individually identified on plan.  Thus, Council was unable to ascertain/conclude the type of signs applied for by the applicant.  
94	Council was also concerned that signs S04 and S05 appeared to fall within the definition of ‘promotion signs’, each sign having an advertising display area of 14.24sqm.  Council says these signs would be prohibited on the review site as their display area exceeds the permissible 3sqm promotion display area to be applied in the NRZ4.
95	As noted above, the applicant provided further clarification at the hearing regarding these signs.  This information was subsequently tabled and relied upon at the hearing by the applicant.  
96	The applicant submits sign S01 contains four ‘discrete’ signs in a supporting structure (4.83m x 2.05m).  The applicant provided the following dimensioned plan showing the various discrete sign types and dimensions.

Figure 3: Dimensioned Sign S01 – Source: Applicant further information, email dated 22/8/2024
97	I have itemised the various signs below as provided and described by the applicant.
•	‘BP’ logo sign - Illuminated Business Identification Sign - display area 4.04sqm.
•	‘Velocity frequent flyer’ sign - Illuminated Promotion Sign - display area 1.85sqm.
•	The Wild Bean Café logo sign - Illuminated Business Identification Sign - display area 1.85sqm.
•	Petrol ‘price’ sign - Illuminated Promotion Sign and an Electronic Sign - display area of 1.85sqm.
98	The applicant also submits that signs S04 and S05 consist of wall decal coverings including the words and logo for the ‘Wildbean Café that is proposed to be operated from the kiosk building.  The applicant says these signs are Business Identification Signs (contrary to Council’s written submission that suggests the signs are identified as promotional signs).  
99	However, the applicant further clarified that sign S04 includes two poster frames that effectively sit over the decal wall of the business identification sign of the Wildbean Café.  The applicant acknowledged these smaller signs were for ‘promotional poster’ purposes.  The applicant also highlighted these poster frames were changeable and dimensioned at 1.05m x 1.30m – 1.36sqm display area.  
100	Based on the information provided by the applicant and shown below, I accept these two signs (shown as blank images below) are distinct from the proposed Wildbean Café business sign on the kiosk wall located behind these two signs.

Figure 4: Dimensioned Sign S04 – Source: Applicant further information, email dated 22/8/2024
101	In its written submission, the applicant submits that sign S05 is a business identification sign that includes an image of milk container pouring into a coffee cup that forms part of the wall decal containing the Wildbean Café business logo.  The description of the sign at paragraph 92 of the applicant’s submission indicates sign S05 has an overall size of 14.24 (similar to sign S04) and will directly face the street frontage.  
102	I was not provided with any specific dimensions of the milk container and coffee cup component that forms part of sign S05.  However, based on the Signage Plan provided with the application, it would appear the display area is larger than the two vinyl promotional signs described by the applicant for sign S04.
My findings
Sign S01
103	Having considered the further written and oral submissions from the parties, I am satisfied that proposed sign S01 does not constitute a Panel Sign under clause 73.02.  I accept sign S01 has an overall display area under 10sqm and therefore falls outside the definition of a Panel Sign.
104	Further, consistent with the findings and conclusions of Member Templar in Bejjal Pty Ltd v Maribyrnong CC [2022] VCAT 1408, I agree and accept that sign S01 contains four discrete signs as described by the applicant above and each of these distinct signs are therefore ‘permissible’ signs (subject to a planning permit) in the NRZ4.
105	I note the overall height (4.83m) of the S01 sign structure that contains the four discrete signs described above, slightly exceeds the overall height of the proposed single storey kiosk building (4.45m).  However, the height of this sign is under the height of the proposed canopy structure (6.4m).  
106	I am satisfied the overall height of proposed signs within the S01 structure will not adversely impact the streetscape setting or character of the site and surrounds.  I say this noting these signs are to be located within the proposed landscape bed positioned centrally to the frontage.  
107	Based on my assessment of the site layout plan and inspection of the site/surrounds, I am satisfied sign S01 is appropriately located towards the front of the review site.  The individual signs will not adversely impact the rear views or amenity of residential properties to the north and west of the review site. Importantly these signs are also internally illuminated.  Thereby ensuring that any light spill can be effectively contained and will be limited to immediate illumination around the front of the site.
108	For the reasons provided above I find that the overall size, dimensions and location of proposed sign SOI results in an acceptable planning outcome as sought under the relevant purposes and decision guidelines of clause 52.05.
Signs S04 and S05
109	Signs S04 and S05 are proposed to be non-illuminated.  Sign SO4 is proposed on the west elevation of the kiosk building (i.e. the sign will be viewed internally to site by users of the petrol bowsers and by passing motorists along Princes Street).  Sign SO5 is proposed on the south elevation of the kiosk building and will be primarily viewed from Princes Street.
110	The applicant’s Signage Plan depicts that signs S04 and S05 will have overall dimensions of 4.45m x 3.2m (display area of approximately 14.24sqm).  Further relevant details of these signs have also been described above.  
111	The Signage Plan shows that each of these signs will include the Wildbean Cafe business logo, on a greyish coloured background with darker coloured swirls/motif.  I was advised by the applicant this colouring and motif forms part of the new branding background for Wildbean Café.  
112	As shown in Figure 4 above, Sign S04 clearly has two discrete ‘vinyl overlay signs’ that measure 1.05m X 1.30m (1.36sqm display area).  I was not provided with the ‘promotional’ material to be displayed in the two vinyl poster areas depicted for sign S04.  Nevertheless, I accept the applicant’s submission that the smaller signs are to be used for promotional purposes.  
113	I note above that sign S05 depicts milk being poured into a large coffee cup.  It was not made clear to me how this was linked with the business logo and the grey coloured business motif of the Wildbean Café on the wall behind.  Nor was I provided with any separate dimensions for this part of the sign, as was provided by the applicant for sign S04.
My findings
Signs S04 and S05
114	Based on my assessment of the applicant’s Signage Plan and the written and oral submissions from the parties, I agree in part with the submissions from council regarding sign S05.  
115	While I was provided with the proposed signage display area of the distinct promotional advertising areas associated with the two promotional signs that sit over the business decal motif of sign S04, I was not provided with any explanation regarding what I consider to be promotional material shown on sign S05 (i.e. the milk container pouring milk into a coffee cup).  This section of the subject sign is shown below.

Figure 5: Part of Sign S05 – Source: Sign Plan Sign S05.
116	I find this part of the subject sign is promotional in nature and intent.  
117	In this circumstance, clause 52.05-2 is at play and states that ‘if a sign can be interpreted in more than one way, the most restrictive requirement must be met.’  Applying this, I find sign S05 falls within the definition of a promotional sign.  The overall sign dimensions clearly exceed the maximum 3.0sqm advertising area applied to promotion signs in the NRZ4 and therefore the sign is prohibited under the relevant Scheme provisions.  
118	I will require its removal by condition from the Signage Plan submitted by the applicant.  I would add it is open to the applicant to provide a separate sign application for this section of wall of the proposed kiosk that complies with the NRZ4 and clause 52.05 provisions.  In saying this, I accept that some smaller form of business identification signage proposed on this part of the kiosk wall to the street could be appropriate and would provide suitable way finding directions to the kiosk for motorists and pedestrians using Princes Street.
119	I now turn to the merits of sign S04 (and other signage proposed on the review site and shown on the Signage Plan) which require assessment against the above purposes and relevant decision guidelines for signage in clause 52.05.  
120	The promotional signage areas provided on sign S04 falls under the maximum advertising area specified for a promotion sign (1.36sqm).  Thus, I find these two discrete promotional signs are permissible in the NRZ4.  There is no maximum display area specified for the proposed business identification sign in the NRZ4.
121	In any event, I find the overall size of S04, its discrete location under the fascia eave of the kiosk building and the fact it is non-illuminated, ensures the subject signs (including the discrete business logo sign and two discrete promotional overlay signs) will satisfy the key purposes of clause 52.05.  The proposed signs will not result in any adverse impacts on the existing or desired character of the area and will not adversely impact the safety, appearance of efficiency of Princes Highway.  Being non-illuminated, I am also satisfied the subject sign will not result in adverse light spill beyond its immediate site boundaries. 
122	Regarding the remainder of the proposed signs shown on the Signage Plan, I am satisfied they are also appropriately located and will not result in loss of visual amenity or present as excessive clutter on the subject land.  I am also satisfied these signs will not adversely impact the efficiency and safety of Princes Street.  
123	I note the relevant road authority (Head, Transport for Victoria) has required conditions limiting light spill and illumination levels from the proposed signage on the review site.  I support these conditions, and they have been retained without change on the permit to issue, as included in Appendix A to this decision.
Traffic and Parking
124	Traffic and parking matters were not contested by Council as part of its grounds of refusal.  However, I note the following:
•	The relevant road authority has not opposed the proposal, or the creation/modification of the proposed road access onto Princes Street.  
•	The Council has not received any updated referral comments following circulation of amended plans.
•	The application Site Plan (PP2) shows six car parking spaces located in front of the proposed kiosk and a further five spaces along the western side boundary.  The plan also shows vehicle access proposed off Princes Street.  
125	I am satisfied that the car parking provided on the review site, together with the proposed vehicular and pedestrian access associated with the Service Station use, satisfies the relevant provisions of clause 52.06-9.
What conditions are appropriate?
126	Draft conditions were circulated and discussed between the parties at conclusion of the hearing.  I have considered these draft conditions and oral submissions as part of my assessment of the final conditions.  
127	I have undertaken some minor re-wording and editing of the Council’s draft conditions as and where required.  This has not changed the intent of these conditions.  
128	The final conditions are included in the permit that is directed to be issued at Appendix A to this decision.
Conclusion
129	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions included in Appendix A below.

Peter Gaschk
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	2023/245	
Land	182-186 Princes Street
TRARALGON VIC 3844	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Use and Development of land for a Service Station in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 4. 
•	Creation of access to a Transport Road Zone 2; and 
•	Display of business identification, electronic, promotion and internally illuminated signage under clause 52.05.	

Conditions
Amended Plans
1	Before the commencement of any works hereby permitted, amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the substituted plans prepared by SMB Design and Construction, Job Number 211123, dated 26 June 2024, Drawing Numbers PP1-PP5 (inclusive) but modified to show:
(a)	A minimum one metre clearance between the existing fire hydrant and the proposed vehicle crossing to the requirements of Gippsland Water and satisfaction of the responsible authority.
(b)	Swept path diagrams demonstrating how the largest nominated vehicle will efficiently access, turn and travel through the site and safely exit the site.
(c)	The width of the landscaping beds on the site plan and a landscaping plan.
(d)	The width of the service station building on the site plan.
(e)	A cross section of the proposed acoustic fencing including the Perspex panel section proposed on the western boundary opposite the habitable room windows of the dwelling at 190 Princes Street.
(f)	The length of LED tube on the western elevation of the canopy shown between the illuminated helios sign and the southern end of the canopy only.
(g)	A Lighting Management Plan to the requirements and satisfaction of the responsible authority.  Such plan to be endorsed by the responsible authority.
(h)	An Environmentally Sustainable Development Management Plan to the requirements and satisfaction of the responsible authority. Such plan to be endorsed by the responsible authority.
(i)	Deletion of sign S05 from the southern elevation wall of the kiosk building as shown on the Signage Plan and Elevations Plan.
Endorsed Plans
2	The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.
3	The siting, structure, content and design of the sign(s) must be in accordance with the endorsed plan and must not be altered or modified without the written consent by the responsible authority.
Standard Development
4	Once building works have commenced, they must be completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
5	All buildings and works must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
6	Upon completion of the development, the land must be cleared of all excess and unused building materials and debris to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
7	Construction works on the land must be carried out in a manner that does not result in damage to existing Council assets and does not cause detriment to adjoining owners and occupiers, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Amenity
8	The use hereby permitted may operate only between the hours of 5:00 am and 12:00 am seven days a week unless with the written consent of the responsible authority.
9	The use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected through the:
(a)	Transportation of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land.
(b)	Appearance of any building, works or materials.
(c)	Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil; and
(d)	Presence of vermin.
To the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
10	All security alarms or similar devices installed on the land must be of a silent type in accordance with the current standard specified by Standards Australia International Limited and connected to a security service.
Acoustic Report
11	Prior to the endorsement of plans under Condition 1 of the permit, a report from a suitably qualified acoustic consultant must be submitted to the responsible authority for approval. The report must assess the plant and equipment to be installed on the site and determine what acoustic measures must be in place, including the provision of a 3.0m high acoustic designed fence along the north, west and part of the east boundary, as shown in the acoustic report prepared by Waveform Acoustics, Final Report, Revision B, dated 3 July 2024, to mitigate to an acceptable level any noise generated by the plant and equipment and the use hereby permitted in accordance with the relevant EPA guidelines.
12	Before the approved use starts, the acoustic fence shown on the endorsed plans approved under condition 11 of the permit must be erected to the satisfaction of the responsible authority along the boundaries of the site. The details of the design and acoustic qualities of the fence must be in accordance with the specifications of the endorsed acoustic report to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
13	Six months following commencement of the approved use a further acoustic assessment is required to be submitted to the responsible authority and shall be carried out by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer and be submitted and then approved by the responsible authority.  Recommendations from this acoustic assessment are to be undertaken and carried out to the requirements and satisfaction of the responsible authority.
14	The acoustic fence constructed in accordance with conditions 11 and 12 of the permit must be maintained to the requirements and satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Waste collection and Litter Management Plan
15	All waste and waste storage bins must be stored within the building or placed in a suitable location outside that is screened from public view. The waste material must be regularly removed from the land. All vehicles removing waste must have fully secured and contained loads so that no waste material is spilled, and no dust or odour is created to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
16	Before the approved use starts, a Litter Management Plan (LMP) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The LMP must be complied with to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The LMP must include:
(a)	The location of all rubbish bins on the land accessible to patrons.
(b)	Signage on the land to discourage patrons from littering; and
(c)	Procedures for a litter patrol each day that the premises is open for trading to the public within a 50 metre radius of the land to collect and dispose of any litter originating from the land.
17	Deliveries and waste collection from the subject site is to be scheduled to only occur between:
(a)	7:00 am and 10:00 pm Monday to Friday; and
(b)	9:00 am and 8:00 pm Saturday and Sunday.
Landscaping
18	Before the use starts or the occupancy of the development or by such later date as approved by the responsible authority in writing, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
19	The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
Signs
20	The approved signs must not contain any flashing lights.
21	The approved signs may only be illuminated between the hours of 5:00 am and 12:00 am seven days a week unless with the written consent of the responsible authority.
22	The approved signs must be constructed in a safe and working condition, and the appearance of the signs must be maintained, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
23	The intensity of the light associated with the approved signs shown on the endorsed plans must be limited, so as not to cause distraction to motorists in an adjoining street or result in loss of amenity in the surrounding area to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
24	The approved signs must not be animated.
25	No bunting, streamers or balloons may be displayed at any time, unless with the written consent of the responsible authority.
26	Unless otherwise approved by this permit, the signage authorised by this permit must only contain an advertisement which provides or supplies information relating to the business conducted on the subject land.
Engineering and drainage
27	The areas set aside for car parking and vehicle access lanes must be maintained in a continuously useable condition and not adversely affect the amenity of the area, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
28	Car spaces, vehicle access lanes, vehicle turn around areas and driveways must be kept available for these purposes at all times.
29	The loading and unloading of goods from vehicles must only be carried out on the land subject to this permit and must not disrupt the circulation and parking of vehicles on the land or adjacent roads.
30	Where proposed, all lighting used to externally illuminate buildings, works and uses shall be fitted with cut-off luminaries (baffles), to prevent the emission of direct and indirect light onto adjoining roadways, land and residential premises to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
31	Before the use commences of the development hereby permitted, or by such later date as is approved by the responsible authority in writing, the following works must be completed in accordance with the endorsed plans and to the requirements of The Head, Transport for Victoria and satisfaction of the responsible authority:
(a)	All drainage works must be constructed in accordance with the approved site drainage plan.
(b)	The proposed vehicle crossings shall be constructed in accordance with the endorsed plans and must satisfy the vehicle crossing standards set out in Latrobe City Council’s Standard Drawing LCC 307.
(c)	The redundant vehicle crossings in Princes Street must be removed and kerb and channel and grassed naturestrip reinstated.
(d)	The areas shown on the endorsed plans for car parking and for vehicle access must be constructed and surfaced in accordance with the approved plans and line marked to indicate each car space and clearly marked to show the direction of traffic through the site.
32	Appropriate measures must be implemented throughout the construction stage of the development to rectify and/or minimise mud, crushed rock or other debris being carried onto public roads or footpaths from the subject land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
33	Before the commencement of any works hereby permitted a site drainage plan, including levels or contours of the land and all hydraulic computations, must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and an electronic copy in PDF format must be provided. The drainage plan must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Latrobe City Council’s design guidelines and must provide for the following:
(a)	How the land including all buildings, open space and paved areas will be drained to the legal point of discharge for a 10 % AEP storm event.
(b)	An underground pipe drainage system conveying stormwater discharge to the legal point of discharge.
(c)	The provision of stormwater detention within the site and prior to the point of discharge into Latrobe City Council’s drainage system. The stormwater detention system must be designed to ensure that stormwater discharges arising from the future development of the land are restricted to pre-development flow rates. The rate of pre- development stormwater discharge shall be calculated using a co- efficient of run-off of 0.4.
(d)	A concrete paved area must be used for the refuelling of vehicles such that all water shall be drained from this area to an outlet point at which an oil and silt interceptor trap shall be installed to receive all drainage from the paved area. All wastewater from the oil and silt interceptor trap must be discharged to an approved sewer or other EPA approved outlet.
34	Prior to the commencement of any works hereby permitted, the operator of this permit shall:
(a)	Arrange for the street tree (including the stump) at 182-186 Princess Street, Traralgon to be removed by a tree contractor approved by the responsible authority. Seven (7) days notification must be given to Latrobe City Council’s Supervisor Arborist before the commencement of any tree removal works.
(b)	Pay $1100.00 to Latrobe City Council in compensation for the loss of asset value as a result of the removal of two existing street trees at 182 Princes Street, Traralgon.
35	Prior to the commencement of any works hereby permitted, the operator of this permit must provide the responsible authority with written consent from the relevant service authority, to relocate or alter the existing telecommunications pit as shown proposed on the plans.
Health Services
36	All wastewater shall be treated and disposed of to the reticulated sewer to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
37	No external sound amplification equipment or loudspeakers are to be used for the purpose of announcement, broadcast, playing of music or similar purpose.
38	The facility must comply with the General Environmental Duty (GED). The GED requires any person (including businesses) engaging in an activity that may give rise to risks of harm to human health or the environment from pollution or waste to minimise those risks so far as reasonably practicable. Pollution may include the emission of noise.
Department of Transport and Planning (Head, Transport for Victoria)
39	The proposed two new vehicle crossings must be constructed generally in accordance with Standard Drawing IDM 250 with a maximum width of 11m.
40	Any redundant vehicle crossing(s) must be removed, and the area reinstated with kerb and channel including the nature strip to the satisfaction of the Head, Transport for Victoria.
41	Prior to the use of the development herby approved, the crossovers must be completed at no cost and to the satisfaction of the Head, Transport for Victoria.
42	Prior to installation of the sign(s) an assessment of the sign(s) against the Department of Transport and Planning Requirements and Guidelines for Illuminated Outdoor Advertising Signage to determine the sign(s) category and parameters must be provided. Information should be provided in tabulated form.
43	During the operation of the sign(s), the maximum average luminance and threshold increment values must not be exceeded.
44	Prior to the operation of the sign(s), a Lighting Compliance Report must be submitted to and approved by the Head, Transport for Victoria. The Lighting Compliance Report must demonstrate that the sign(s) has been commissioned according to the requirements against the Department of Transport and Planning Requirements and Guidelines for Illuminated Outdoor Advertising Signage.
The Compliance Report must include the following:
(a)	On site luminance measurements for Daytime, Evening/Morning Twilight and Night-time, based on a 100% white screen set to the maximum value for each lighting condition.
(b)	Date and times of luminance measurements for the relevant lighting conditions.
(c)	Details of the luminance meter used, including serial number. The luminance meter must have been calibrated by an appropriately certified Laboratory within the last 12 months. The date of calibration and Calibration Report Number shall be provided.
(d)	A description of the luminance methodology used, including location and orientation of the luminance meter relative to sign, the image/content displayed on sign and number of measurement points taken. The signage should be measured with a 100% white image displayed, unless signage is a fixed colour/design.
(e)	Photos of the sign for each sky condition measured, taken from the meter location.
(f)	Indicative elevation plans of the signage showing the values of luminance at each measurement point.
(g)	A summary showing the final average luminance of the signage for each relevant sky condition.
(h)	A certification signed by a suitably qualified lighting consultant to undertake luminance measurements.
Permit Expiry
45	This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit; or
(b)	The development is not completed and the use has not commenced within four years of the date of this permit.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, (Vic) an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.
46	The approval contained in this permit for the sign(s) shown on the endorsed plans expires 15 years from the date of this permit.
– End of conditions –