VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DIVISION LIST P588/2018 TPA/47337 CATCHWORDS Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Monash Planning Scheme; General Residential Zone; Policy; Building height; Amenity; Car parking. APPLICANT BC Mount Waverley Project Pty Ltd Monash City Council VicRoads, Public Transport Victoria RESPONDENT Bedelis Investments Pty Ltd SUBJECT LAND 445-467 Blackburn Road, Mount Waverley WHERE HELD Melbourne BEFORE Bill Sibonis, Presiding Member Michael Deidun, Member HEARING TYPE Hearing OF HEARING 20, 21, 22 and 23 August, 2018 DATE OF ORDER 8 October, 2018 CITATION BC Mount Waverley Project Pty Ltd v Monash CC [2018] VCAT 1538 Pursuant to section 127 and clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and 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: Rothe Lowman Drawing numbers: TP1.04, TP2.00 to TP2.07, TP2.09, TP2.10, TP2.12, TP3.01 to TP3.04, TP4.01 to TP4.05, TP5.01 to TP5.03, TP6.01 to TP6.07, TP7.01 to TP7.06, TP8.01 Dated: 9 July 2018 Prepared by: Xurban
of the use at 6.00pm and its confinement to weekday operation will assist in mitigating any effect noise may have on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties. Importantly, the outdoor area is orientated to the north and north-west, rather than to the residential properties to the west. This will further assist in managing the noise impacts. As noted in the evidence, the locality experiences a level of ambient noise arising from its adjacency to the freeway and Blackburn Road. This context will have the effect of making noise from the child care centre less acute than would be the case in a quieter residential area. Both the Council and Mr Bedelis submit that the proposal should comply with the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme. Mr Bedelis noted the potential impact on car parking availability in the adjacent activity centre, should the proposal fail to provide a sufficient supply of car parking on site. As a result of Amendment VC148, as the review site is within 400 metres of the Principal Public Transport Network the applicable car parking rates are those specified in Column B of Clause 52.06-5. Traffic and car parking evidence was provided by Mr Hunt. It is his evidence that the car parking requirements under Clause 52.06, and the proposed car parking provision on site, occurs as per the table below. Use Requirement Provision Surplus/Shortfall Dwellings 22 spaces 22 spaces N/A Retirement village 119 spaces 108 spaces -11 spaces Residential Hotel (including serviced apartments) 102 spaces 51 spaces -51 spaces Child Care Centre 17 spaces 17 spaces N/A Restaurant 5 spaces A total of 48 spaces are provided +31 spaces Conference Room 12 spaces Visitors to various uses 0 space Total 269 spaces 246 spaces -31 spaces His evidence is that while there is a shortfall of 31 car parking spaces from the statutory requirement, as the proposal seeks to allocate spaces in surplus to some of the proposed land uses, the actual shortfall in practice is 62 spaces. This comprises a shortfall of 11 spaces for the retirement village, and 51 spaces for the residential hotel.