VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1957/2019
Permit Application no. M/2019/429	
CATCHWORDS	
Maroondah Planning Scheme; use and development of a child care centre in a residential neighbourhood; consideration of a child care centre against policy for non-residential land uses in a residential area; consideration of a child care centre in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone; landscape outcomes in a Significant Landscape Overlay; preferred future character outcomes in the Ruskin Park neighbourhood area; appropriateness of a child care centre along a main road; traffic impacts arising from a child care centre.	

APPLICANT	Allaf Property Management Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Maroondah City Council	
Referral Authority	Head, Transport for Victoria	
RESPONDENTs	I Hollingsworth, J Kopecek, E Rodda, J Monk	
SUBJECT LAND	84 & 86 Hull Road, Croydon	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Michael Deidun, Member	
HEARING TYPE	Major Case Hearing 	
DATE OF HEARING	10 & 11 August 2020	
DATE OF ORDER	25 August 2020	
CITATION	Allaf Property Management Pty Ltd v Maroondah CC [2020] VCAT 916	

Order
1	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the permit application is amended by substituting for the permit application plans, the following plans filed with the Tribunal:
•	Prepared by:	Co-lab Architecture	
•	Drawing numbers:	A000, A200 to A202, A221, A230, A2000, A2001, A3000, A3001, A3100, A9000	
•	Dated:	7 February 2020	
2	In application P1957/2019 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
3	In planning permit application M/2019/429 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 84 & 86 Hull Road, Croydon in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Use of the land for a child care centre
•	To construct a building and construct or carry out works
•	Removal of vegetation
•	Alteration of an access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1
•	Display of business identification signage

Michael Deidun			
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	John Cicero and Edward Mahoney, Solicitors of Best Hooper. 
They called the following witnesses:
•	Colleen Peterson (Town Planner) of Ratio Consultants
•	John Patrick (Landscape Architect) of John Patrick Landscape Architects
•	Charmaine Dunstan (Traffic Engineer) of Traffix Group
•	Christopher Goss (Visualisation) of Orbit Solutions
As none of the parties sought to cross examine Mr Goss, he was not called to give oral evidence	
For responsible authority	Irene Plakidis, Town Planner of Refine Town Planning	
For referral authority	No appearance	
For respondents	Edward Rodda, Ian Hollingsworth and Jane Kopecek all appeared in person	

Information
Description of proposal	Use and development of the land for a child care centre	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit.  	
Planning scheme	Maroondah Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Neighbourhood Residential Zone 6
Significant Landscape Overlay 4	
Permit requirements	Clause 32.09-2 to use land within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone for a child care centre
Clause 32.09-9 to construct a building and construct or carry out works associated with a Section 2 use, on land within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone
Clause 42.03-2 to remove, destroy or lop vegetation from land to which the Significant Landscape Overlay applies
Clause 52.29-2 to create or alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1
Clause 52.05-13 to display a business identification sign	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22.02, 22.13, 32.09, 42.03, 52.05, 52.06, 52.29, 65 and 71.02.	
Land description	The land is an irregular shaped parcel, with a frontage to Hull Road of 50.01 metres, a depth of between 53.34 and 60.76 metres, and an overall area of 2626 square metres.  The land presently supports two single storey detached dwellings and two outbuildings.	
Tribunal inspection	The Tribunal inspected the site and surrounding area prior to the scheduled earlier hearing date, on 17 March 2020.	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Allaf Property Management Pty Ltd (the ‘Applicant’) seeks to review the decision of the Maroondah City Council (the ‘Council’) to refuse to grant a permit to allow the use and development of a child care centre on land at 84 & 86 Hull Road, Croydon (the ‘review site’).  The Council’s grounds of refusal raise concerns with the impact on the surrounding neighbourhood character and landscape character, the removal of vegetation, the extent of hard paving proposed, and the likely traffic impacts associated with the proposal.
2	The Applicant relies on grounds that essentially seek to refute the Council’s grounds of refusal.  A number of nearby residents have lodged statements of grounds opposing the proposal, and have become parties to this proceeding.  Their concerns generally relate to those matters being addressed by Council.
3	The issues or questions for determination are:
a.	Is the proposal an appropriate response to the surrounding neighbourhood character, and site locality?
b.	Is the proposed tree removal appropriate?
c.	Will there be any unreasonable off-site amenity impacts?
d.	Does the proposal appropriately provide for car parking and traffic movements?
4	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Maroondah Planning Scheme, I have decided to set aside the Council’s decision, and direct the grant of a planning permit with conditions.  My reasons follow.
Is the proposal an appropriate response to the surrounding neighbourhood character, and site locality?
5	The application proposes the establishment of a child care centre in a residential neighbourhood, along a busy road but distant from an activity centre of any description.  As such, the proposal raises policy questions addressing the location of non-residential land uses in residential neighbourhoods, and of achieving an outcome that is respectful of the surrounding neighbourhood character.
6	At a State level, policy encourages both the provision of community facilities, and the protection of neighbourhood character.  It is at a local level that policies start to meaningfully guide a decision maker in respect of these policy themes.
7	Clause 21.06 of the Maroondah Planning Scheme contains the Council’s policies in relation to Built form and urban design.  Clause 21.06-2 contains the following policy guidance:
Objective 3 
•	To encourage development that provides and creates high quality urban places. 
Strategies 
•	Ensure that advertising signage located in and visible from public areas presents a coordinated and high quality image. 
•	Ensure new residential development contributes to achieving the preferred neighbourhood character of the neighbourhood area. 
•	Require all new development to incorporate the highest standards of urban image, landscape design and building design innovation.
8	These policies identify that new residential development is to contribute to the preferred neighbourhood character of an area.  However, when one turns to the Residential Neighbourhood Character policy at Clause 22.02, it becomes evident that this policy, including the preferred character statements, apply to all development in the residential zones, not just residential development.  As such, the content of Clause 22.02 is relevant to the dispute that is before me.  
9	Clause 22.02-3 contains general policy statements that are relevant across the residential areas of the municipality, and include the following guidance:
Development makes a positive contribution to the preferred neighbourhood character as identified in the relevant preferred neighbourhood character statement for the site.
10	In order to find the preferred neighbourhood character statement for any site, one needs to turn to the reference document (Maroondah Neighbourhood Character Study, Planisphere, 2004), where one finds the following guidance for Neighbourhood Area 12 Ruskin Park, which includes the review site.
Preferred future character 
The Ruskin Park Neighbourhood Area will be characterised by low scale dwellings, set in established gardens. The sense of formality in the streets throughout the neighbourhood will be strengthened by the existence of many avenues of street trees and canopy trees in private gardens. The vegetation of Ruskin Park will visually link with canopy trees throughout public and private domains. Frontage treatments will become more consistent with low fences and vegetation predominating.
11	Returning to the policy at Clause 22.02-3, this preferred future character statement is assisted by the following policy guidance.
Neighbourhood area 12 Ruskin Park 
The preferred future character will be achieved by: 
•	Ensuring the development of complementary dwelling styles, derived from the horizontal form of existing housing stock in the older areas of the neighbourhood. 
•	Encouraging the use of compatible materials, particularly in exclusively weatherboard areas. 
•	Maintaining the current setback patterns, allowing space between buildings for gardens. 
•	Ensuring the front setbacks are not dominated by car parking structures. 
•	Ensuring the retention of existing vegetation, particularly canopy trees. 
•	Encouraging low and open front fences where this predominates.
12	The preferred character outcomes in this neighbourhood are further guided by the purposes of Schedule 6 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ6), and Schedule 4 to the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO4), both of which are set out below.
Neighbourhood character objectives 
To ensure that vegetation and canopy trees remain the dominant visual feature of the skyline by maintaining and increasing the vegetation cover, particularly large canopy trees. 
To ensure that there is a balance between the provision of vegetation and built form, by requiring an adequate amount of permeable land for planting and sustaining vegetation. 
To enhance visual links from Ruskin Park to the heavily vegetated Dandenong Ranges.
Statement of nature and key elements of landscape 
The combination of canopy trees and steep to undulating topography contribute to major elements of the urban character of Maroondah. Canopy trees in particular soften the impact of buildings in the environment and provide a distinct leafy character to Maroondah. 
The continuous nature of the canopy vegetation throughout Maroondah provides a strong character element and is valued by the community. The canopy vegetation is a defining element of the urban character of Maroondah.
13	The SLO4 also has a series of decision guidelines.  As none of the parties that oppose the proposal, oppose a planning permit being granted for any of the individual trees, and as no permit is required for buildings and work under SLO4, I will not repeat these decision guidelines in these reasons.
14	As identified earlier in these reasons, there is a second relevant policy theme, which relates to the insertion of non-residential land uses within a residential neighbourhood.  Clause 21.07 contains the Council’s policies relating to Housing and residential land use, and Clause 21.07-2 includes the following:
Objective 4 
•	To limit the intrusion of non residential uses into residential precincts. 
Strategies 
•	Prevent the loss of residential land and housing stock for essential non-residential uses without suitable residential replacement in some alternative location within the municipality.
15	Clause 22.13 contains the Council’s Non Residential Uses in Residential Areas policy.  This policy includes the following objectives and policy statements:
Objective 
To facilitate non-residential uses in residential areas only where they are compatible with the residential character and amenity and serve the needs of the local community 
To ensure that the design, scale and appearance of non-residential premises reflects the residential character and streetscape of the area. 
To retain existing housing stock in residential zones. 
To ensure that development is designed and constructed taking into account environmentally sustainable design practices. 
To ensure that the intensity and operation of the use does not adversely affect residential amenity. 
To ensure that the location of the use is appropriate to the role and function of the road network and that adequate provision is made for on-site car parking. 
Policy 
It is policy to: 
•	Maintain or enchance the residential aspect or physical appearance of the area. 
•	Build upon the existing commercial framework. 
•	Be located adjacent to or abutting an existing business zone. 
•	Provide a use or service that is not able to be provided within the business centre. 
•	Not result in the ribboning of commercial development. 
•	Not result in the establishment of commercial uses in intact residential areas. 
•	Locate new convenience and combined retailing outlets in existing commercial areas.
16	Finally, the Neighbourhood Residential Zone provides decision guidelines at Clause 32.09-13, including the following that relate to Non-residential use and development.
In the local neighbourhood context: 
•	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.
17	The Council submits that the proposed development will not result in an appropriate response to the surrounding neighbourhood character, and the guidance provided by the Maroondah Planning Scheme.  They observe that non-residential land uses in a residential area have the capacity to create a range of negative consequences.  The Council submits that the scale of the proposal is significant, both in terms of the building size and the extent of car parking, and when combined with the commercial character and appearance of the development, it will bring substantial change, with limited landscaping opportunities.  The Council is particularly critical of the proposed setbacks, the dominance of car parking from the street, and the scale of intensity of development as viewed from Hull Road, and its compatibility with the surrounding residential character.
18	Ms Kopecek submits that a child care centre of this scale does not respect the surrounding neighbourhood character, due to the loss of canopy trees and biodiversity.  She submits that where child care centres do exist in the surrounding neighbourhood, that they are smaller centres, and are generally accessed off main roads that comprises multiple lanes on dual carriageways.  Ms Kopecek also submits that this proposed child care centre has an excessive amount of hard surfaces, and borrows from the surrounding landscape.  She argues that there is no need for this facility, given the number of child care centres in the surrounding neighbourhood, and that it fails to support the residential nature of the precinct.
19	Mr Rodda submits that there is no need for this child care centre, and that a local need should be established before a child care centre is allowed within this residential neighbourhood, and the economic viability of the proposal should be proved before residential land is permanently alienated.  Mr Rodda also submits that the intent of the recent rezoning of the Ruskin Park neighbourhood to a Neighbourhood Residential Zone is that it remain in residential land use, and that certain landscape outcomes prevail, which this proposal does not achieve.
20	I am not persuaded by these submissions, and instead find that the proposed development is an appropriate response to the guidance from the Maroondah Planning Scheme, the surrounding neighbourhood character, the preferred character statement, and the landscape character for this locality. I make these findings for the following reasons.
21	Firstly, there is no imperative on the Applicant to demonstrate a local need for this proposed child care centre, nor prove its economic viability.  In respect of need, this principle in planning decision-making has been long held, dating at least from the decision of the Planning Appeals Board in Shell Company of Australia Ltd and Others v City of Frankston and Another [P82/1527 8APA 126], where the Board remarked:
When the word "need" is used in a town planning sense, it must mean community need. It is not necessary to show an element of urgent community necessity for a facility. Rather need connotes the idea that the well being of a community or some part of it can be better and more conveniently served by the provision of a particular facility.
.........
Need is a relevant consideration, but not an essential requirement......If an applicant can show a need for a proposed use, then this factor may outweigh other considerations adverse to the use. However, a lack of need will rarely, if ever, be a ground for refusing to grant a permit.
22	Secondly, I am not persuaded by the submissions made that this proposed development will negatively impact on this local neighbourhood, with landscape outcomes that significantly differ from that which could reasonably be expected from a medium density development on the review site.  Instead, it is my observation that the proposed development of the review site will achieve positive outcomes, particularly in terms of landscaping outcomes, that are generally not achieved by medium density developments in this neighbourhood.  The proposed development of the review site will result in the retention of three existing canopy trees, and the planting of a further 25 trees on the review site.  Some of the trees that are proposed to be planted are quite large for a residential setting, and include large Eucalyptus species of Yellow Box and Red Box.
23	This level of planting can be compared to that which has occurred on the adjoining two sites to the south of the review site, each of which have been developed with three dwellings.  Aerial photography reveals that combined, these two sites to the south of the review site, which have a combined site area similar to that of the review site, have resulted in the retention or planting of up to five trees that could properly be described as canopy trees. Aerial photography reveals a similar outcome on many other nearby sites that have been developed for medium density housing.  I therefore cannot support the submissions made to me, that this proposed child care centre will result in landscape outcomes that are not consistent with the manner in which residential development has occurred in this neighbourhood.  Given the high importance that landscaping plays in both the existing and preferred future character for this neighbourhood, the extent to which this proposed development provides a substantial landscaped setting is an important factor in its contribution to the preferred future character for this locality.
24	Thirdly, I am not persuaded by the Council’s submission that the proposed development is a relatively intense form of use and development of the review site.  The Council has also described the proposal as land hungry.  I accept the description of this particular proposal as being land hungry, but only because it is not an intensive design of a child care centre.  A child care centre that is intensively designed often has car parking at a basement level, internal playrooms across two levels of the building, and outdoor play areas at ground and first floors, and the rooftop.  An intensively designed child care centre would also have reduced setbacks of the building and car park to the front boundary, and elements of built form to the side boundaries.  That this proposed child care centre does not utilise any of those intensive design elements, does make it land hungry, but only because it seeks to space out the different elements within a very generous garden setting.  
25	The Council’s submissions focus on the floor area of the proposed building, and the area to be accommodated by car parking, as evidence of the intensity of the proposed land use.  While the size of the proposed building and car park are relevant attributes of the proposed development, as is the approximately 45% of the review site that is to be dedicated to garden area.  Therefore, while the proposed building and car park has some substantial qualities to them, they are by no means squeezed onto the review site, nor proposed at the expense of a very generous garden setting.  As such, I cannot accept the Council’s description of this proposal as being an intensive form of land use for the review site.
26	It is my finding that the proposed development of the review site is to occur in a manner which is highly respectful and responsive to the surrounding residential neighbourhood character.  I make this finding having regard to the following elements of the proposal that is before me.
a.	The proposed child care centre building is predominately single storey in scale, with a very small two storey element in the centre of this building.  As this two storey element is setback 22.8 metres from the front boundary, 7.6 metres from the eastern side boundary, 22.0 metres from the rear boundary, and 25.6 metres from the western side boundary, and also is substantially setback from the extent of the ground floor below, the proposed child care centre building will retain a predominantly single storey character and appearance, consistent with the surrounding housing stock.
b.	I am persuaded by the evidence of Ms Peterson that the scale of the proposed child care centre in the Hull Road streetscape, is not that indifferent to the rhythm and width of the existing dwellings along Hull Road in this location.
c.	The proposed child care centre building is provided with two different floor levels that step down with the slope of the land, thus reducing the overall scale of the building as it presents both to the surrounding properties, and the Hull Road streetscape.
d.	The proposed child care centre building has been designed in a manner that enables it to take on a residential appearance.  This is achieved through the provision of a pitched roof that presents as a series of interconnecting gables to the front elevation, through a variety of setback elements to the front façade that assist to break up its width and give it a more domestic appearance, and through the use of materials and colours that are commonly found in the surrounding housing stock.
e.	The proposed development is provided with very generous setbacks to its boundaries, including a 9.0 metre setback from the proposed building to the front boundary, a setback of between 4.0 and 4.8 metres to the eastern boundary, and a minimum 5.8 metre setback to the rear boundary.  Further, substantial areas of landscaping are provided between the car park and the front, side and rear boundaries.  These setbacks enable the retention of existing trees, and also allow for the establishment of a very generous landscaping response throughout the site.  Where other child care centres in this neighbourhood are developed with car parking that is setback a very minimal distance from the front boundary, the proposed car park on the review site has a minimum setback of 5.5 metres from the angled frontage.  This will enable the establishment of a significant level of landscaping between the front boundary of the site and the proposed car park.
27	In respect of the preferred character statement for Ruskin Park, I find that the proposed development is an appropriate response to this guidance as it will provide a low scale building that is in a generous garden setting.  This garden setting will include the retention and establishment of a number of canopy trees that will provide a link to the landscape character of the neighbourhood and the nearby Dandenong Ranges.  Further, the frontage of the review site will be dominated by landscaping, and while a high fence is required for the safety needs of children, the fence will be open and transparent and allow views to the existing and proposed landscaping.
28	In respect of the guidance provided at Clause 22.02-3 of the Maroondah Planning Scheme for the Ruskin Park neighbourhood area, I find that the proposed development is an appropriate response to this guidance.  In making this finding I note the following attributes of the proposed development:
a.	the horizontal form of the proposed building which will complement the surrounding low scale dwellings;
b.	the use of materials that complement the weatherboards and face brickwork that predominantly exist in the surrounding housing stock;
c.	the provision of setbacks to Hull Road and the side boundaries that maintain the prevailing pattern of setbacks, and allow the establishment of a garden setting around the review site, and between the building that is proposed for the review site and the buildings that exist on adjacent properties;
d.	the siting of the proposed car parking area to one side of the proposed building, and behind a landscaped front setback, thus ensuring that car parking will not dominate the frontage of the review site;
e.	the retention of three existing canopy trees on the review site, noting that Council does not consider that any other tree on the review site is worthy of retention; and,
f.	the proposal for an open fencing style at the front of the site that balances the need for the safety of children on the site with the desire for views into a landscaped front garden from Hull Road.
29	Having regard to these attributes of the proposed development for the review site, I also find that the proposal is an appropriate response to the character outcomes sought by Schedule 6 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, and Schedule 4 to the Significant Landscape Overlay.  The residents in their submissions referred to the recent rezoning of the review site and the surrounding neighbourhood to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, and say that this reinforces the need for the review site to play a residential role in the future.  I note that the residents failed to take me to any particular clause in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to support their submissions that this zone discourages the use of the land for a child care centre.  I do not read the Neighbourhood Residential Zone as further discouraging non-residential land uses, as compared to the General Residential Zone.  Indeed, the differences between the two zones is relatively subtle, particularly where they are not supported by a policy framework that adequately sets out the different expectations in terms of character and housing change in the different zones.  For these reasons I do not regard the recent rezoning of the review site and surrounding land to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, as discouraging the use of the review site as a child care centre.
30	My findings that the proposed child care centre will achieve outcomes that appropriately respect the existing and preferred future neighbourhood character of this locality, is a significant finding when one turns to the other policy theme, as to the preferred locations for non-residential use within residential areas.  When one turns to both the policy at Clause 22.13 of the Maroondah Planning Scheme, and the decision guidelines at Clause 32.09-13, one finds these controls as encouraging outcomes that respect the residential character and appearance of the area.  For the reasons that are set out above, I find that this proposed development adequately achieves those outcomes.  In respect of the other outcomes sought by these controls, I find that the proposed development is an appropriate response and an appropriate fit for this residential area, having regard to the following:
a.	For reasons set out elsewhere in this decision, I find that the proposed development is compatible with the residential character and residential amenity of this neighbourhood, with a built form scale and a series of setbacks that reflect the appearance of existing buildings in the surrounding neighbourhood.
b.	For reasons that I explore later in this decision, the location of the use is appropriate having regard to the role and function of Hull Road as a main road in the surrounding road network.  Further, adequate provision is made for on site car parking.
c.	The proposal will not result in ribboning of commercial development along Hull Road.
d.	The extent of landscaping that is to be retained and proposed on the review site will exceed that which exists on many of the surrounding residential properties.
e.	The proposal provides a level of car parking that is sufficient for the proposed use of the land, and thus will not present a car parking demand on the surrounding residential neighbourhood.
f.	Loading and refuse collection facilities are adequately contained on-site in a manner where they are not located adjacent to a residential interface.
g.	For reasons set out later in this decision, traffic to and from the site can be accommodated safely and efficiently on the surrounding road network.
31	For these reasons I find that the proposed development is an appropriate response to both the existing neighbourhood character, as well as the preferred future character for the Ruskin Park neighbourhood, having regard to the guidance provided by the Maroondah Planning Scheme.  For the reasons set out above I also find that the review site is an appropriate location for this child care centre.
Is the proposed tree removal appropriate?
32	In its submission, the Council advises that 11 trees that are proposed to be removed from the review site require a planning permit under the Significant Landscape Overlay.  In addition, the application proposes the removal of a street tree.  These trees are listed below.
•	Tree 1 – Weeping Bottlebrush (Callistemon viminialis) – 7m in height (street tree) 
•	Tree 4 – Prickly-leaved Paperbark (Melaleuca styphelioides) - 8m 
•	Tree 7 – Silver-leaf Stringybark (Eucalyptus cephalocarpa) -15m 
•	Tree 8 - Lilypily (Syzygium smithii) - 25m 
•	Tree 9 – Queensland Brushox (Lophostemon confertus) -14m 
•	Tree 13 – Cherry Plum (Prunus cerasifera) - 6m 
•	Tree 15 – Apricot (Prunus ameniaca) – 6m 
•	Tree 16 – Crimson Bottlebrush (Callistemon citribus) - 6m 
•	Tree 17 – Kohuhu (Pittosporum trnuifolium) – 6m 
•	Tree G20 – Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila) - 5m
•	Tree 21 – Funeral Cypress (Cupressus funebris) - 8m 
•	Tree G22 – Italian Pencil Pine (Cupressus sempervirens stricta) -9m
33	The Council does not oppose the removal of any one individual tree that requires a planning permit for its removal.  Instead, the Council is opposed to the likely impacts on the existing trees to be retained, and aspects of the proposed landscaping regime.
34	In terms of the trees to be removed that require a planning permit, I need to turn my mind to the decision guidelines set out at Schedule 4 to the Significant Landscape Overlay, as set out below.
Before deciding on an application, the responsible authority must consider: 
•	The effect of the proposed removal of the vegetation on the character and canopy of the area. 
•	The significance of the vegetation to the character and environment of the area. 
•	The habitat value of the vegetation. 
•	The role of the vegetation in providing vegetation and habitat corridors throughout Maroondah and the region. 
•	The benefit of planting indigenous vegetation. 
•	The role of the vegetation in contributing to and maintaining biodiversity and the landscape of Maroondah. 
•	The benefits of requiring replanting elsewhere on the site. 
•	The benefits of seed collection from any indigenous vegetation. 
•	The reason for removing the vegetation and the practicality of alternative options which do not require the removal of the vegetation.
35	The Council’s decision to not oppose the proposed extent of tree removal has been arrived at after the lodgement of an arborist report by the Applicant, and an internal review of the quality and health of the existing trees.  I am persuaded that this process undertaken by the Council has properly identified the existing trees on the review site that are proposed to be removed, as not worthy of retention.  I appreciate that the existing trees achieve some of the outcomes sought by the decision guidelines under Schedule 4 to the Significant Landscape Overlay.  For example, the existing trees contribute to the character and canopy of the area, they have a marginal habitat and biodiversity value, and one tree comprises indigenous vegetation.  However, much of the existing vegetation is in poor condition, or nearing the end of their lifespan, and therefore would likely play a limited role in the future character of this neighbourhood if they were retained.
36	The outcomes sought by the decision guidelines under Schedule 4 to the Significant Landscape Overlay can also achieved by the proposed new landscaping regime on the review site.  Indeed, given the extent of canopy tree planting that is proposed for the review site, and the ability to select a range of species including those that are indigenous to the review site, the new landscaping regime can achieve these decision guidelines to a higher level, than the existing vegetation that is proposed to be removed.  For these reasons I find that it is appropriate to grant a permit for the removal of the 11 trees from the review site.
37	In relation to the trees that are sought to be retained on the review site, I have not been persuaded by the Council’s submission that the proposed development fails to provide for their continued protection and health.  The Council’s focus is on what they consider to be significant intrusions into the tree protection zones and structural root zones of the three retained trees.  I am not persuaded that the incursion into these zones is as high as the Council has presumed.  For example, in relation to tree 23, the presumed incursion from a pedestrian path and a fence can both be overcome through the design and construction techniques to both the path and fence, so as to protect the tree protection zone of tree 23 where they interact with these features.  Likewise, the decking that is proposed around trees 5 and 6 can readily be constructed in a manner that protects both the tree protection zones and the structural root zones of these trees.  Indeed, as observed by Mr Patrick in his evidence, the construction of a deck around the root zones of these two trees can actually provide a benefit in avoiding the compaction of these root zones as a result of the future use of the land.  
38	For these reasons I find that the proposed development of the review site can adequately provide for the continued protection and health of the existing trees that are to be retained on the review site.  As such I do not support those conditions proposed by Council that seek to have the proposed layout further amended, following further arboricultural assessment.
39	The Council also made submissions that a number of the trees that are proposed to be planted are species that are poorly selected, or poorly located.  I am persuaded by the evidence of Mr Patrick that he has thoroughly considered the proposed planting regime, and that it is an appropriate one for the review site.  Further, I am also not persuaded by the Council that the proposed planting of fruit trees along part of the eastern boundary of the review site, should be replaced by more significant screening planting.  As I have already noted earlier in these reasons, the range of setbacks proposed along the eastern boundary are significant, and the proposed built form is of a low scale nature.  Therefore, I do not consider that screening planting to block views to this well setback and low scale built form is necessary.
40	For these reasons I support the landscape outcomes that are achieved by the proposed development of the review site.
Will there be any unreasonable off-site amenity impacts?
41	Mr Rodda submits that the proposal to have children playing in the front setback of the proposed child care centre will cause acoustic impacts for the surrounding residents, particularly those on the opposite side of Hull Road.  
42	An acoustic report was lodged with the planning permit application, which recommends the construction of 2.1 metre high acoustic fencing along the rear boundary, and the two side boundaries of the review site.  It is the conclusion of the acoustic report that this extent of acoustic fencing will appropriately limit the noise impacts to adjoining residents.  The findings of this acoustic report have been supported by Council following their independent assessment.
43	I am not persuaded by Mr Rodda’s submission that the lack of acoustic fencing along the front of the review site, and the siting of play space to part of the front boundary of the review site, will result in unreasonable acoustic impacts on the properties on the opposite side of Hull Road.  Firstly, the properties on the opposite side of Hull Road have the benefit of being separated from the review site by the width of Hull Road, which is around 20 metres, and by the setback nature of their own dwellings from their front boundaries.  This creates a separation distance of around 29 metres from the proposed siting of the playground, to the windows of the nearest properties on the opposite side of Hull Road.  These dwellings also are already subject to the traffic noise along Hull Road, which establishes a background noise level that will compete with the noise from children in the playground.  For these reasons I am persuaded by the acoustic report that has been lodged with the application, and by its assessment by Council, that no further acoustic treatment is required in order to achieve acceptable noise impacts on the surrounding properties.
44	No other concerns relating to off-site amenity impacts were raised by any of the parties.  Having regard to the setbacks and the low scale nature of the proposed built form which I have previously described in these reasons, the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable visual bulk impacts on the surrounding properties.  The proposed setbacks significantly exceed those required for a residential development of the site, and the proposed landscaping regime will ensure that appropriate interfaces are created to the surrounding residential properties.
45	The predominantly single storey nature of the proposed building ensures that no unreasonable overlooking will occur to the surrounding properties. Where there is a very small first floor projection in the middle of the building, this first floor is designed with three windows that face the front of the review site.  As such, these windows will not allow overlooking of any adjoining property.
46	In terms of overshadowing, given the setbacks and the low scale built form that are proposed, no extent of overshadowing will be caused to any of the surrounding properties at the equinox.
47	I am also persuaded that the proposed development takes into account other aspects of this proposed land use that could cause amenity impacts to surrounding properties.  For example, the bins are proposed to be stored away from the boundaries of the adjoining residential properties, and a gate is proposed to be constructed at the entrance to the car park, to discourage any after hours unruly activity from occurring in this car park.  While Mr Hollingsworth was critical of the proposed gate, I find that its setback nature and open design will not result in an unreasonable visual intrusion onto the Hull Road streetscape.  As I have previously identified, the dominant visual element to Hull Road will be the existing trees, supplemented by the proposed landscaping as it matures over time, rather than the proposed gate.
48	For these reasons I find that the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts to the surrounding properties.
Does the proposal appropriately provide for car parking and traffic movements?
49	The Council acknowledges that the proposal provides the required number of car parking spaces under Clause 52.06 of the Maroondah Planning Scheme.  In relation to traffic impacts, the Council makes the following submissions.
7.34	The Council considers the proposal has the potential to generate unreasonable traffic congestion within Hull Road. Conducting right hand turns, particularly when departing the site would be difficult to navigate given the proximity of the ‘bend’ in Hull Road (to the east) and speed at which vehicles are travelling.  
 7.35 	The width of the carriageway may be sufficient to allow for eastbound vehicles to travel around a stationary vehicle waiting to turn right into the site, however these movements would be obstructed by cars parked on Hull Road (noting that unrestricted kerbside parking is provided on both sides of the street). The same would apply to westbound traffic in the event that vehicles were parked contiguous to the site frontage, on the southern side of Hull Road. 
 7.36 	The Council submits that the intensity of a 130 place child care centre is high intensity in this location and would have significant traffic impacts upon the amenity of the area.
50	Mr Hollingsworth submits that the proposed development will result in overflow car parking to the surrounding residential streets.  He also says that the extent of peak hour traffic along Hull Road already causes frustrations and delays in accessing nearby facilities, and that additional traffic will use Hull Road with the future residential subdivision of the quarry on the western side of Lilydale, which is planned to provide for 3200 dwellings.  Mr Hollingsworth submits that there are many accidents along Hull Road which are not recorded in official statistics, and that this proposed access point will result in dangerous traffic movements.  These submissions are supported by Mr Rodda, who raises similar concerns.
51	The proposed development provides the required number of car parking spaces under the Maroondah Planning Scheme.  As such, I cannot require any additional car parking to be provided on site.  It is the evidence of Ms Dunstan that the number of car parking spaces provided on site will provide for the peak demand of car parking for this child care centre, and as a result there will be no overflow of car parking into the surrounding streets.  I am persuaded by this evidence of Ms Dunstan, given that it is based upon empirical data of the car parking demands at existing child care centres.
52	The residents in this proceeding asked a number of questions of Ms Dunstan regarding the traffic movements that will occur when the car park is full.  As expressed by Ms Dunstan, the likelihood that the car park will be full, with additional drivers searching for a car space at any time, is extremely low.  That is because the car park has been designed to provide a sufficient level of car parking spaces for the expected peak demand.  However, as observed by Ms Dunstan in her oral evidence, even if the car park does briefly become full, the car park has been designed to provide for additional vehicle movements, through:
a.	The provision of a turning bay at the end of the car park, which is in addition to the car park design requirements set out in the Maroondah Planning Scheme, and which will allow vehicle movements to continue to occur in the car park even if it is ever full;
b.	The provision of adequate space for cars to enter and exit the site at the same time, thus allowing for the car park as a whole to cater for cars in addition to those that might be parked in every car space at once; and,
c.	The provision of adequate space for cars to pause at numerous points within the car park, including within the driveway situated between the car park and Hull Road.
53	These design elements exist in addition to a recognition that parents’ cars within a child care centre are parked for a relatively short period to allow drop off or pick up to occur.  As such, in the unlikely event that the car park is full, it is the evidence of Ms Dunstan that a waiting parent would not have to wait long at all for a car parking space to become empty, and that there will be a regular turnover of cars and car parking spaces becoming vacant and available.
54	Further, it is the evidence of Ms Dunstan that vehicles slowing down to enter the site do not require a deacceleration lane on Hull Road, given the 60 km/h speed limit that exists on the road.  I acknowledge the submissions of Mr Hollingsworth that additional vehicle movements into and out of the review site has the potential to slow traffic along Hull Road, particularly during peak times.  I would have thought it was in the residents’ interest to have traffic along Hull Road slowed during the peak hour, and additional gaps in the traffic to be created by vehicles turning left and right into the review site.  It is these interruptions to the otherwise regular, and almost constant, traffic flow along Hull Road that will actually make it easier for residents to exit onto Hull Road during peak hours from the surrounding streets.  I certainly do not see any negative traffic impact arising from a slowing of traffic, as slower traffic is most often correlated with a safer road environment.
55	For these reasons I am not persuaded by the submissions of residents that the design and layout of the car park will in any way cause an unreasonable car parking or traffic impact on Hull Road.
56	It is the evidence of Ms Dunstan that child care centres create a traffic demand of between 0.5 and 0.8 vehicle trip ends per child during the commuter peak hours.  In order to adopt a conservative approach, Ms Dunstan has applied the highest of this range of rates of vehicle trip ends within the peak hour to her assessment.  This results in the creation of a maximum of 52 vehicles entering and exiting the site during a peak hour, or approximately one vehicle entering and exiting every minute.  It is the evidence of Ms Dunstan that the existing traffic levels along Hull Road peak at just over 1700 vehicles in the peak hour.  The proposed level of increased traffic therefore represents a very low level of additional traffic to this existing main road.
57	Further, the analysis of Ms Dunstan also takes a conservative approach, as it does not account for the likelihood that cars that are already on the road network, such as those people who are already driving past the review site to get to work, or to get to the local primary school, are potentially some of those people who will in the future stop at the review site to drop off kids at this proposed child care centre.  In these scenarios, and others like it, the proposed location of the child care centre on this main road location will not actually add additional vehicle movements to Hull Road.
58	Ms Dunstan has analysed the extent of traffic movements along Hull Road, and determined that there are sufficient gaps in the existing traffic levels to allow for vehicles to safely enter and exit the review site.  Ms Dunstan has undertaken this analysis having regard to the site distances that are available in both locations from the proposed access point to the review site, which she opines provides for an environment of safe entry and exit movements to the review site.  I am persuaded by this evidence from Ms Dunstan, and find her analysis of the traffic impacts on Hull Road to be comprehensive, and realistic having regard to the surrounding traffic environment.
59	The residents in this proceeding argue that traffic levels along Hull Road in the peak hours are already high, and will likely grow in the future, particularly when the quarry located in the western part of Lilydale is developed for residential purposes.  I am satisfied that the evidence of Ms Dunstan has adequately identified the existing traffic levels along Hull Road, and also identified that safe access can be achieved to the review site, even accounting for the likely increase in traffic volumes along Hull Road over time.  
60	The residents also argue that the existing traffic levels along Hull Road currently cause delays in their accessing surrounding infrastructure and facilities, and that the proposed child care centre will only create additional delays.  I am not surprised to hear that the existing traffic levels along Hull Road causes delays during peak hours.  This would have to be the case for most, if not all, main roads throughout metropolitan Melbourne during peak hours. Unfortunately, traffic delays during peak hours are a way of life in a city as large as Melbourne, and the existing delays on our arterial road network cannot be used as a means by which to stifle further development, particularly of proposals such as this which will provide a valuable service to the local community.
61	That this child care centre will gain access off a main road should be seen as a positive aspect of the proposed development, rather than a negative one.  It will enable the increased traffic levels to immediately integrate with the peak hour traffic along the main road network, and as such reduce the potential traffic impacts on the local residential road network.  The submissions of Mr Hollingsworth and Mr Rodda identify that Jarvis Avenue and other nearby local streets already experience a degree of ‘rat running.’  I observe that the extent of traffic experienced along these local roads may also partly be a result of the existing siting of a child care centre on nearby View Street, which is a facility sited on an otherwise quiet residential street.  I anticipate that this facility on View Street will be creating much more traffic in the surrounding residential road network, than a child care centre located on a main road location, such as the review site.
62	It is the evidence of Ms Dunstan that the review site benefits from a road network that provides a number of different approach routes for vehicles.  As such, it is her evidence that the level of traffic accessing the proposed child care centre will be dispersed throughout the surrounding road network, and the extent of vehicles that might be experienced along any one nearby local road will be so low as to be imperceptible.
63	The residents argue that additional traffic will be experienced along the local residential roads, as people who avoid turning right out of the proposed child care centre, and instead turn left onto Hull Road, will then have to take an alternate route to access land to the west.  From my knowledge of this local area, I anticipate that anyone who wants to avoid turning right at an uncontrolled intersection onto a main road in this neighbourhood, are likely to turn left out of the review site and then turn right into Dorset Road, and right into Lincoln Road, in order to return to travelling in a westerly direction towards Mooroolbark.  This route will not add any additional traffic to the surrounding local residential road network.  While other routes may add a level of traffic to surrounding local residential roads, I consider any such level of traffic is likely to be very low, and incidental to the existing level of ‘rat running’ identified by Mr Hollingsworth and Mr Rodda on the surrounding local residential road network.
64	In addition to the expert analysis of Ms Dunstan, the proposed development of the review site with a child care centre has been subject to an independent review by traffic engineers at both the Maroondah City Council, and the Department of Transport, formerly known as VicRoads.  As a result of these independent expert assessments of the proposal, and the existing traffic conditions along Hull Road and the surrounding road network, both the traffic engineers at the Council and at the Department of Transport support the proposed development.  I need to give significant weight to the independent assessment of these experts.
65	At the same time, I acknowledge the point made by Mr Hollingsworth that he and other residents in this proceeding represent the local community in this area, that will be impacted by this proposed development.  However, the experiences that residents describe in this proceeding regarding peak hour traffic levels across the road network, is not one that is particular or unique to this location.  Traffic levels are higher during peak hours across metropolitan Melbourne, and they cause delays and frustrations for a range of people.  However, these existing traffic levels cannot stifle development, nor the provision of community facilities such as this.  That is particularly the case where every traffic expert that has viewed this proposal is of the opinion that the future traffic impacts can be accommodated on the surrounding road network in a safe manner.
66	For these reasons I find that the proposed child care centre on the review site, will not create any unreasonable traffic impacts on the surrounding road network.
What conditions are appropriate?
67	A number of matters about permit conditions were raised by the parties.  With respect to those matters, other than those already addressed above, I summarise my conclusions as follows:
a.	For the reasons set out above, I do not support the Council’s proposed condition limiting exiting movements from the review site to left out only.  I note that this condition has not been recommended by Council’s traffic engineers.
b.	For the reasons set out above, I also do not support the Council’s proposed condition to reduce the extent of the deck surrounding trees 5 and 6.
c.	For the reasons set out above, I also do not support many of the changes sought to the landscape plan prepared by Mr Patrick.  I will edit the landscape plan condition accordingly.
d.	Other changes to the permit conditions have been made, in order to give effect to my findings as set out in these reasons, and to remove conditions that are unnecessary.  One example of the later of these two reasons, is the deletion of a condition that Council has drafted, that requires the written approval of Council prior to the installation of any additional lighting.  This condition is unnecessary, given that a further permit condition requires any external lighting to be baffled so as not to cause detriment to any surrounding land.  
e.	Finally, I will update the waste management plan condition to refer to the smaller waste vehicle that is supported by the evidence of Ms Dunstan.

Conclusion
68	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Michael Deidun			
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	M/2019/429	
Land	84 & 86 Hull Road, Croydon	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Use of the land for a child care centre
•	To construct a building and construct or carry out works
•	Removal of vegetation
•	Alteration of an access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1
•	Display of business identification signage	

Conditions
1	Before any buildings and works or use start (whichever is the sooner), 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 advertised architectural plans (Co-lab Architecture, dated 7 February 2020), but modified to show:
(a)	An Arboricultural Impact Assessment, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Arborist, to provide direction and construction methods for the retaining wall alignments, pavements and built form located within the Tree Protection Zone of Trees 5, 6 and 23, in accordance with the Australian Standard for the Protection of Trees on Development Sites, AS4970-2009.  The Arboricultural Impact Assessment must include the following:
i	identify and assess any feature of development and any related works or activity which may occur within any TPZ of a retained tree.
ii	Recommend construction methods of the development required to afford adequate protection to retained trees. These recommendations will show that the impacts on the root system and crown of each retained tree has been considered, including any impact associated with practical construction works (such as, use of fill, excavation for foundations and retaining wall alignments and use of scaffold for the purposes of construction) and that impacts are manageable.  Alternative construction methods which are required to mitigate any development impacts to retained tree must be provided by way of detailed drawings and to satisfactorily inform all other plan sets.
(b)	any changes to the plans as required to give effect to the Arboricultural Impact Assessment requested in Condition 1(a);
(c)	the location of all structural root zones and tree protection zones for Trees 5, 6 and 23.
(d)	The construction of a 2.1 metre high acoustic fence along the rear and two side boundaries of the review, site, in accordance with the description provided in the Acoustic Report by Renzo Tonin & Associates dated 17 May 2019.
(e)	The provision of a gate(s) that bars vehicular entry to the car park after hours, and which is/are setback at least 6.0 metres from the front boundary of the review site, as measured along the accessway.
(f)	Tree Protection Plan in accordance with Condition 20.
(g)	Amended Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 25.
(h)	Amended Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 29.
2	The layout of the use/s as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible authority.
3	The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible authority.
4	Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, no more than 130 children may be present at any one time. 
5	Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority operating hours are to be limited to:
(a)	6:30am and 7:00pm Monday to Friday
Children may only play outdoors between the hours of 7:00am and 7:00pm Monday to Friday.
6	The use and/or the occupation of the development must not detrimentally affect the amenity of the area 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;
(d)		presence of vermin; or
(e)		in any other way.
7	No public address system may be used which results in noise being audible outside the building.
8	All security alarms or similar devices installed on the land must be of a silent type in accordance with any current standard published by the Standards Australia International Limited and be connected to a security service.
9	Noise levels emanating from the premises must not exceed those required to be met under State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade), No. N-1.
10	All external lights must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent nuisance or light spill to adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible authority.
11	The plant and equipment on the roof of the building must be screened in a manner to complement the appearance of the building to the satisfaction of the Responsible authority.
12	Before any building or works start, construction plans for all parking areas and access lanes must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The construction plans must be consistent with the endorsed site layout, development plans and landscaping plans.
13	Before the use starts or the development is occupied (whichever occurs first), the area(s) set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the approved plan must be:
(a)	Surfaced with a durable all-weather seal;
(b)	Drained to the nominated legal point of discharge;
(c)	Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes;
(d)	Marked to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and driveways; and
all to the satisfaction of the Responsible authority.
14	Before the development is occupied, the owner must at its cost construct a new industrial & heavy use concrete vehicular crossing to Council standard SD-H03, at right angles to the road to suit the proposed driveway to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The vehicle crossing must be a minimum 1.0 m offset from any existing tree or utility service assets.
15	Before the development is completed, the owner must at its cost remove any unnecessary or redundant crossover and kerb adaptors associated with 84 & 86 Hull Road and reinstate kerb and channelling and the affected nature strip to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 
16	Before the development is occupied, the drainage and associated works shown on the Drainage Plans must be constructed in accordance with those plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Within 14 Days of the completion of the works, certification by a suitably qualified engineer must be submitted to the Responsible Authority certifying that works have been completed in accordance with the Drainage Plans.
17	During the works, methods to control sediment laden runoff as described under ‘Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines for Urban Stormwater’ or similar must be implemented and used to minimise sediment laden runoff and stormwater pollution from leaving the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
18	The building access and internal facilities must be designed having regard to the convenience of disabled persons.
19	Before any building or works start, drainage plans including calculations prepared by a suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The Drainage Plans must:
(a)	Show all drainage works associated with the development including any drainage works required beyond the boundaries of the land;
(b)	Show the nominated legal point of discharge;
(c)	Convey stormwater runoff by means of underground drains to the nominated legal point of discharge.
(d)	Prevent overland flows from having a detrimental effect on the environment or adjoining properties;
(e)	Limit the permissible Site Discharge (PSD) to the equivalent of a 35% impervious site coverage, or the pre-developed discharge rate, if it is less than 35% impervious site coverage, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; and
(f)	Provide appropriate stormwater detention storage to limit the maximum discharge rate to the PSD
(g)	Construction of an outfall drain to the nominated Legal Point of Discharge
20	Concurrent with the endorsement of plans or prior to the commencement of any works at the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), whichever occurs sooner, a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority.  The TPP must be prepared by a suitably qualified arborist and clearly show:
(a)	for each tree shown to be retained on the land or on neighbouring land, a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) and Structural Root Zone (SRZ) calculated in accordance with the Australian Standard for Protection of Trees on Development Sites (AS4970-2009). 
(b)	the development layout, all built features, including: pavement, retaining walls; and drainage infrastructure.
(c)	tree protection requirements for retained trees within and adjoining the subject site (including the road reserve), in accordance with the Australian Standards for the Protection of Trees on Development Sites (AS 4970-2009), including tree protection fence alignments and areas of ground protection, ie where fencing cannot adequately afford tree protection or access across the TPZ is required. 
(d)	any other specific tree protection requirements (eg low impact construction measures) or where these cannot be adequately shown reference to more detailed documentation/plans be provided.  
(e)	The extent of pruning required to the existing street tree to the west of the review site along Hull Road, in order to achieve appropriate sight lines for vehicles exiting the review site.
21	Prior to the commencement of any building and or demolition works on the land, Tree Protection Measures as detailed on the approved Tree Protection Plan, must be established and subsequently maintained until completion of all buildings and works, including landscaping, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
(a)	The project arborist must advise the responsible authority in writing that the Tree Protection measures have been installed to their satisfaction. 
(b)	The TPP must be printed on A2 weatherproof paper.
(c)	The TPP must be highly visible on the site and be displayed at the site entry.
22	Prior to the commencement of any works at the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), a letter of engagement must be provided to the responsible authority from the project arborist selected to oversee all relevant tree protection works. The project arborist must be an appropriately experienced and qualified professional (minimum Cert IV or equivalent in experience).
23	Prior to the commencement of any works at the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), the project arborist must advise the responsible authority in writing that the Tree Protection Fences have been installed to their satisfaction. 
24	The project arborist must maintain a log book detailing all site visits. The log book must be made available to the responsible authority within 24 hours of any request.
25	Before the development starts or use commences, an amended landscape plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority.  When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit.  The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects (dated 6 March 2020) but modified to show:
(a)	For each tree shown to be retained on the land or on neighbouring land, a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) and Structural Root Zone (SRZ) calculated in accordance with the Australian Standard for Protection of Trees on Development Sites (AS4970-2009). 
(b)	Low impact construction measures specified, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, wherever buildings, pavements or services are located within a Tree Protection Zone and which encroaches greater than 10% of the TPZ area, unless otherwise demonstrated that the tree will remain viable by the Arboricultural Impact Assessment.  All low impact construction measures must be detailed through cross-section drawings.
(c)	Detailed design which demonstrates that appropriate soil profiles, irrigation and drainage are provided where garden bed interface with the building along the western boundary.
(d)	Show Black Sheoaks (Allocasurina littoralis) along the southern boundary planted in copses.
26	Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.  Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
27	Before the use starts or the development is occupied (whichever occur first), the Acoustic Report prepared by Renzo Tonin and Associates dated 17 May 2019 is to be implemented and endorsed to form part of the permit.    
28	Before the commencement of any works including tree removal and demolition, a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved the CMP will form part of the permit and must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  The CMP must include, but not be limited to, the following: 
(a)	details of hours of demolition and construction including deliveries;
(b)	details of the construction program; 
(c)	Traffic Management details including VicRoads MOA if required;
(d)	methods to contain dust, dirt and mud within land, and the method and frequency of clean up procedures;
(e)	details of facilities on the land for vehicle washing;
(f)	protection measures for features of the land to be retained including vegetation, retaining walls, buildings, other structures and pathways;
(g)	details of delivery and unloading points and expected frequency;
(h)	details of a liaison officer for contact by residents and the Responsible Authority in the event queries or problems are experienced;
(i)	details of the movement of construction vehicles to and from the land to avoid traffic hazards in and around the land;
(j)	details of parking facilities for construction workers (including any builder/contractor parking permits issued by Council);
(k)	measures to minimise the impact of construction vehicles arriving at and departing from the land;
(l)	an outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, and anticipated disruptions to local services;
(m)	the processes to be adopted for the separation, re-use and recycling of demolition materials;
(n)	the measures for prevention of the unintended movement of building waste and hazardous materials and other pollutants on or off the land, whether by air, water or other means;
(o)	the measures to minimise the amount of waste construction materials; the provision for the recycling of demolition and waste materials; and the return of waste materials to the supplier (where the supplier has a program of reuse or recycling);
(p)	the measures to minimise noise and other amenity impacts from mechanical equipment and demolition/construction activities, especially outside of daytime hours;
(q)	the provision of adequate environmental awareness training for all contractors and sub-contractors on the land; and
(r)	measures to protect the stormwater drainage system so that no solid waste, sediment, sand, soil, clay or stones from the land enters the stormwater drainage system.
29	Concurrent with the plans under condition 1, an updated Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  When approved the WMP will form part of the permit and must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  The updated WMP must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by Impact SALT dated 17 May 2019, but modified to include the following:
(a)	Waste collection to occur via a 6.4 metre long mini rear loading waste collection vehicle;
(b)	Details of how garden waste will be managed;
(c)	All waste collection to be conducted outside of child care centre operating hours (and not during the off-peak times);
(d)	All waste collection vehicles are to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.
30	This permit as it relates to use will expire if the use does not commence within two (2) years after the issue date of this permit.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the period referred to in this condition.
31	This permit as it relates to development (buildings and works) will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not started within two (2) years of the issue date of this permit.
(b)	The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this permit.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.
VicRoads Conditions 
32	Prior to the commencement of use or occupation, a sealed access crossover as at least 6.4 metres wide at the property boundary with the edges of the crossover angled at 60 degrees to the edge of the road, at least for the first 3.0 metres with 3.0 metres radial turnouts must be constructed to the satisfaction the Responsible Authority (RA) and at no cost to VicRoads or the Responsible Authority.
33	Prior to the commencement of use of the permitted development, redundant vehicle crossovers onto Hull Road must be removed and the kerb, channel, footpath and nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
34	All vehicles must enter and exit the site in a forward direction at all times.
35	Prior to the occupation of the use of the development hereby approved, the following roadworks on Hull Road must be completed to the satisfaction of and at no costs to the Roads Corporation (VicRoads):
(a)	The modification of the existing double continuous line marking on Hull Road.
– End of conditions –