Saurty, Dewandra and Gootee v Blacktown City Council

[2008] NSWLEC 1474

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Saurty, Dewandra and Gootee v Blacktown City Council [2008] NSWLEC 1474

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Saurty, Dewandra and Gootee

RESPONDENT
Blacktown City Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

10902 of 2008

CORAM:

Hoffman C

KEY ISSUES:

:- to use an existing house as professional consulting rooms with ancillary carparking, traffic and parking congestion, impact on residential amenity, proximity to another health care use, traffic safety.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 1988
Blacktown Development Control Plan 2006

DATES OF HEARING:

07/11/2008

 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 

24 November 2008

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr Wright, barrister
Instructed by Hills Legal

RESPONDENT
Mr C. Drury, solicitor
of DLA Phillips Fox

JUDGMENT:

THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hoffman C

24 November 2008

1 Commissioner: This is a Class 1 appeal against the refusal of a development application to use an existing house as professional consulting rooms with ancillary carparking at No. 340-342 Glenwood Park Drive, Glenwood. The practice is already operating in the house and the adjoining lot is used as a carpark for the patients and staff.

The Proposal

2 Development Application No. 07-1915 (the subject application) has been lodged with Blacktown City Council proposing the use of a 2 storey dwelling on No. 342 Glenwood Park Drive as a Professional Consulting Room comprising 3 consulting rooms, waiting room and reception on the ground floor. The upper floor is proposed for use as a residence. It is proposed to use No. 340 Glenwood Park Drive as a carpark for the Professional Consulting Room. The carpark has 9 carspaces including one disable space. There is a 10 ^th space for ambulance/loading bay. The double garage in the house is for staff and resident. The hours of operation proposed in the Statement of Environmental Effects by CAM Consulting are 9am-6pm Monday to Friday and 9am-1pm Saturdays and not open on Sundays (and presumably not on public holidays).

The Site and surrounds:

3 Lots 64 and 65, DP 1101236, No. 340-342 Glenwood Park Drive, Glenwood.

4 The site is 1 002m² in size with boundaries as follows:

Northern boundary: adjoining vacant lot 31.465m
Southern boundary: adjoining vacant lot 35.5m
Eastern boundary (Glenwood Park Dr frontage): 35.71m
Western boundary: adjoining vacant lot 24.74m

5 The subject land falls about 3m toward the east from the rear to the front boundary. Surrounding land falls to the east and the north.

6 No. 342 Glenwood Park Drive is currently landscaped on the south side with grasses and gardens to part of the lot. In front of the double garage there is bare compacted earth and does not appear to be used for cars. An artificial turf carpet is laid up the slope from the front boundary to the front porch. No. 340 Glenwood Park Drive is currently devoid of any landscaping other than some grass and weeds and has compacted road base over most of it and is used as a carpark.

7 There is a masonry front fence across part of No. 342, and no fence in front of No. 340. There is a kerb opening used as a drive entry to the carpark, but no footpath crossing. There is no public footpath across the frontage of the site.

8 Residential development across the street and nearby has been landscaped in a manner typical of suburban planting.

9 Glenwood is a very new subdivision and the vacant land adjoining the site appears as residual rural grassland, although it may comprise new lots.

10 The surrounding area is residential in character and developed predominantly with single dwellings of a mix of single and 2 storey brick construction.

11 Glenwood Park Dr is a collector road and winds for a kilometer or so through the subdivision. It has a 6m wide carriageway enabling two moving lanes and two parking lanes. It is a bus route.

State Environmental Planning Policies

12 There are no State Environmental Planning Policies applicable to the site or the proposed development.

Regional Environmental Plans

13 There are no Regional Environmental Plans applicable to the proposed development.

Local Environmental Plans

Blacktown Local Environmental Plan, 1988 (BLEP).

14 The subject land is zoned 2(a) Residential pursuant to the BLEP. Development for the purpose of 'professional consulting rooms' is permissible with consent in the 2(a) residential zone.

Development Control Plans

15 The following parts of Blacktown Development Control Plan 2006 applies to the subject land and to the development:

Part A - Introduction and General Guidelines

Part C - Development in the Residential Zones - Chapter 10.5 Professional Consulting Rooms .

1. Car Parking

The car parking for the proposed development is unsatisfactory.

Particulars:

(i) The driveway gradient does not encourage the use of the proposed car parking area.

(ii) Despite numerical compliance with the provisions of the Blacktown Development Control Plan 2006 regarding car parking, the development has shown to be insufficient in terms of the number of car parking spaces available.

2. Road Safety and Traffic

The location of the proposed development is such that it does not enable safe access and egress movements.

3. Distance Separation

The proposed development does not meet the distance separation requirements contained in the Blacktown Development Control Plan for Professional Consulting Rooms.

Particulars:

(i) Chapter 10.5.5 of Blacktown Development Control Plan, Part - Development in the Residential Zones establishes a 150m distance separation to other existing or approved professional consulting rooms or premises used by a member of the medical of health care profession.

(ii) No.331 Glenwood Park Drive has consent (and is being used) for purposes of a chiropractor.

(iii) No.331 Glenwood Park Drive is 65m from the subject land.

4. Objectors

Issues raised by objectors are summarised in the statement of facts. The Respondent contends that, to the extent that the matters raised by objectors coincide with the matters referred to in contentions 1 - 3, they are matters warranting refusal of the application.

Council contends that the above matters are not able to be satisfactorily addressed by conditions of consent.

The evidence

16 Written objections were received from the following parties:

• S and A Bowles, No. 341 Glenwood Park Dr
• D Doyle, No. 345 Glenwood Park Dr
• J and A Piotrowski, No. 343 Glenwood Park Dr
• Mrs Tasneem, No. 336 Glenwood Park Dr

17 The submissions identified the following concerns in relation to the DA:

• On street parking resulting in loss of amenity;
• Car park not an appropriate form of development on a residential lot;
• Permissibility of car parking within a residential zone;
• Hours of operation out of keeping with residential area;
• Excessive size for such an activity;
• Inadequate parking proposed on site;
• Distance separation to other medical facilities not met; and
• Traffic safety.

18 Submissions in support were received from the following parties:

• Hillsbury Health Services of PO Box 221 Kurmond 2757 signed by Joty Saurty (not one of the applicants), saying he/she is the owner of the site and the subject surgery was transferred from its previously approved site of 15 years operation at 174 Glenwood Park Dr as that property was sold and the practice had to move.
• Darren Carr, CEO Hawkesbury-Hills Division of General Practice, Rouse Hill.
• R and E Crowley of 339 Glenwood Park Dr (opposite site) gave conditional support on the basis of the surgery being made to operate within the law and the parking area being made big enough to cope with demand and have separate entrance and exit for safety and thus avoid people making U-turns in the street that has a double centre-line past the site

19 A letter from Louise Markus MP, member for Greenway was received by Council drawing attention to the importance of providing local medical services and that the Parklea Medical Centre (subject application) provides 7 days a week services with two doctors at any one time.

20 A letter from Mr Chin the chiropractor at 331 Glenwood Park Dr said he had no objection provided the surgery opened during normal business hours and kept no drugs on the premises and had no chiropractor.

21 At the on-site Hearing oral evidence was given by:

• Mr D Maguire on behalf of daughter Mrs Bowles of 341 Glenwood Park Dr.
• Mrs A Bowles of 341 Glenwood Park Dr
• Mrs A Piotrowski of 343 Glenwood Park Dr
• Mrs E Crowley of 339 Glenwood Park Dr
• Mr D Carr of Hawkesbury-Hills division of General Practice
• Mr K Nash consultant town planner for the applicant.
• Mr J Ross consultant town planner for the respondent.

22 Mrs Crowley said she and her husband found it very convenient to have a doctor opposite their home. She saw the problems of carparking, congestion, U-turns across the double centre-line, and the appearance of the carpark. However she felt if the practice could be made to provide proper facilities it would be acceptable. Of particular note Mrs Crowley said the carpark has to be properly constructed and landscaped. Due to the slope of the site up from the street, and her husbands mobility difficulties she said a pathway suitable for disable patients is necessary. She had counted up to about 18 cars of patients and staff on the site or parked in the street, and thought the carpark should be big enough for 18. She noted on the day of the hearing there were 10 cars on site with room left over for more.

23 Mrs Piotrowski said apart from the poor appearance of the surgery as it currently exists, she thought the look of the carpark even if properly built would not fit into the suburban streetscape. She thought even if the carpark is built there would still be parking in the street. At the moment people park their cars right up to her drive entry making safe driver sightlines very difficult when reversing out from her house. Also family of patients, especially kids that stay in the car while the parents are in the surgery, create a lot of noise outside her home and leave rubbish on the footpath or gutter. Mrs Piotrowski’s house is very well kept with landscaping including street trees and lawn. The surgery opens 7 days a week and patients often arrive before opening hours to be first in the queue especially at weekends when the doctors take patients without an appointment. The arrivals sometimes wake her up early on weekend mornings, and sometimes there are cars still leaving after 7.30pm at night. The practice does not allow reasonable residential amenity for its neighbours. It should be refused.

24 Mr Maguire said in his opinion “professional consulting rooms” are for specialist doctors working only to appointments. If that was the way the practice operates then the overflow carparking and all the adverse amenity impacts might be resolved. However his daughter’s experience living across the street shows that it does not operate that way. Also he is aware a physiotherapist operates on the upper floor of the house. That makes 4 practitioners and the statute says a maximum of three. The past experiences of the neighbours has led them to distrust the operators of the practice. The application said it would only have 3 doctors and a receptionist. How could that be, a nurse would be needed, and it appears on visits to the surgery and inquiries by phone there are at least 2 non-medical staff now.

25 He said the name of the subject business is Parklea Medical Centre so it sounds as though it provides a wide range of medical services, not just 3 doctors. He noted there used to be a notice in the surgery asking patients to park their cars in the carpark or on the surgery side of the street. That did not have much effect as the parking congestion and dangerous driving and difficulty for residents using their driveways still occurs.

26 He did not think the carpark would be big enough. With 3 doctors and 3 staff for 9 spaces, it only leaves 3 for patients. Observation in the past showed the garages in the house are used for storage, not for car spaces. If 3 doctors see 30-40 patients per day that is 90-120 patients translating to 180-240 car movements in and out per day not counting ones who are dropped off and picked up later, and not counting deliveries and servicemen. Also the current staff includes a nurse and a physiotherapist, so if they are all seeing patients too that is up to 200 patients per day, or 400 car movements just for patients. Mr Maguire thinks 17 carspaces on-site are needed.

27 The carpark causes loss of residential amenity by that activity. It looks like a gap in the street where there would normally be another house. It will be unattractive, he said.

28 Mrs Bowles said she had attended a driver/patient of the surgery who had a car crash coming out of the carpark right outside Mrs Bowles house. The driver said to her the cars parked so close to the surgery entry restricted sightlines and caused the crash. Mrs Bowles had no confidence construction of the carpark would stop drivers parking in the street in the same positions as now. She agreed with Mrs Piotrowski’s and Mr Maguire’s evidence.

29 Mr Carr said his Hawkesbury-Hills division provides services to 84 medical practices on accreditation, drug education, professional development, mental health, office management, computer information technology etc, and conducts after hours medical services at Hawkesbury Hospital.

30 His division has been involved with the subject practice for 8 years together with their other 3 surgeries. He regards the practice as well run and providing a valuable community health service for Glenwood and surrounds.

31 He rejects opinions expressed by objectors that the stated 3 doctors and one receptionist will not be adhered to if approval is granted. He did say however that medical practices operate with a number of doctors who have set days at each surgery, so he would expect the subject proposal to be “3 doctors on site at any one time”. He said it is not unusual for a receptionist to be a nurse as well. In General Practice a nurse is only needed for some patients.

32 In regard to Mr Maguire’s interpretation of the words “professional consulting rooms” he thought in layman terms and to himself the names “medical centre”, “family practice”, “doctors’ surgery”, “medical practice” all mean the same thing. They are commonly used by doctors in the naming of their practices depending on personal preference. In any case Parklea Medical Centre has been the name of this Glenwood Park Dr practice for the last 8 years including when on its other site. In regard to Mr Maguire’s interpretation of the words “professional consulting rooms” he thought in layman terms and to himself the names “medical centre”, “family practice”, “doctors’ surgery”, “medical practice” all mean the same thing. They are commonly used by doctors in the naming of their practices depending on personal preference. In any case Parklea Medical Centre has been the name of this Glenwood Park Dr practice for the last 8 years including when on its other site.

33 Mr Carr was critical of the objectors saying the practice should be for specialist doctors only and run on an appointment only basis. General Practice IS a medical speciality, and doctors have 3 years special training before they can enter it. And during the week he understands there are appointments, it is only on weekends there are no appointments necessary.

34 There is the likelihood that the staff may be on-site after hours because doing administration, writing up patient records etc is often done when all patients have gone. Cleaners come after hours too.

35 On patients arriving early or late and extending the hours of operation he said that is part of the traditional service of GP’s. If someone is sick enough to come to the doctors they are not turned out of the waiting room unattended. The greater proportion of patients at this practice are the frail aged, kids and the chronically ill. That is the usual mix at GP’s surgeries, and they are the people who need a surgery close to home. If this surgery closes there will be no local doctor for Glenwood. The Hawkesbury-Hills region has a need for GP services in many other locations, and the odds are the practice would relocate to one of them.

36 To his knowledge the subject practice has 1 full time and three part-time doctors and 1 nurse and 1 receptionist. The ideal ratio for good public health services is one GP per 1000 population. On his statistics Glenwood and surrounds has that, so a closure would make it deficient.

37 The average appointments allow 4-5 patients per hour per doctor. For 3 doctors over 8 hours that is about 90-120 per day maximum. The allegations of objectors of 200 per day in the past and present operation do not seem possible even if the physiotherapist and the nurse were seeing patients. There would be tradesmen, computer technicians etc occasionally, and regular collections of medical waste and pathology couriers, but not adding up to 200 persons per day.

38 Also the effective “patient time” for a doctor is 8 hours even though the surgery is open 9 hours. The doctors DO have a lunch break of sorts. Usually the lunch break is when they see pharmaceutical representatives. Also the effective “patient time” for a doctor is 8 hours even though the surgery is open 9 hours. The doctors DO have a lunch break of sorts. Usually the lunch break is when they see pharmaceutical representatives.

39 Mr Carr said based on the average practice, the above activity would need parking for 3 staff and 6 patients/others. This site has 9 for patients, one for ambulance/loading and 2 in the garage for staff/resident. That’s 12 spaces.

40 The applicant confirmed that no matter what may have occurred in the past, the proposal is for 3 doctors on-site at any one time and 1 receptionist with the upstairs wholly used as a residence, and the garages made accessible by the new driveway and used only for cars.

41 I note from the plans and as Mrs Crowley observed, there were 10 cars in the carpark today and space for one or two more because of the large manoeuvring area between 6.5m and 11m wide between the carspaces and the house. Looking at the landscape plans the boundary garden strips and the garden beds on the street boundary would not reduce this capacity. All the car spaces can turn in the driveway aisle to enter and leave in a forward direction. The loading bay vehicle can manoeuvre in a 3-point turn between the bay, the parked cars and the surgery entry porch.

42 In regard to the carpark being out of character with the residential street, Mr Carr noted there were two other similar carparks along Glenwood Park Dr, one at a pre-school and the other at the previous site of the medical surgery.

43 The two town planners, Mr Nash and Mr Ross had produced a joint report after examining all these things.

44 They had concluded that the Blacktown Development Control Plan 2006 requires 10 carspaces for the surgery. With 11 being provided for the surgery and one for the residence they agreed there is compliance and once constructed it should be adequate for the parking of staff and patients. Drivers will use the carpark instead of the street in their opinion once it is built.

45 The location of the waiting room entry off the carpark (not the front door of the house) will further encourage drivers and patients to use the carpark. It will avoid most patients having to walk up the slope to the entry. Also it will provide almost level access from the ambulance and the disable car spaces to the entrance.

46 In regard to traffic safety they agreed that once the 6m wide drive entry is constructed to the carpark, the slope up from the street will give drivers good vision to and from any traffic. Glenwood Park Dr is relatively straight adjacent and near the site so oncoming cars will not be concealed.

47 In regard to the distance separation of 150m between professional consulting rooms in residential areas they agree that the terms of the control are not prohibitive. The control actually says:

Development applications for professional consulting rooms will generally only be approved………….(sic!), where they are 150m from any other approved medical or healthcare consulting room, or 150m from a zoned business area.

48 The control goes on to say:

The intention of implementing the above distance separations is to maintain the integrity of zoned business centres and to minimise the impacts of commercial activity outside the core business areas. The separation distances also disperse non-residential developments so that impacts such as noise and traffic are dispersed and not concentrated in one stretch of a residential street.

49 The purpose of the control is:

In order to allow health services to be provided in close proximity to residential development, professional consulting rooms are permissible with development consent in all residential zones.

50 The experts agreed:

The intentions of the distance separation requirement are to maintain residential amenity and character, ensure traffic is not out of keeping with the road hierarchy and network, and finally to ensure such activities do not proliferate in residential areas thus diminishing the role of local commercial centres.

No.331 Glenwood Park Drive has consent for, and is being used by a chiropractor and is 65m from this proposal.

The chiropractor's operation involves 1 health care professional, 1 receptionist and operates on an appointment basis with 1 visitor at a time (with possibly 1 additional visitor waiting for a consultation).

It is agreed that given the low-key nature of the chiropractor, in terms of visitor and traffic generation, it is considered that the operation of the two premises in such proximity would not have any adverse impacts on traffic generation or erode the residential character or amenity of the neighbourhood.

It is agreed that the proposal satisfies all of the other intentions of the criteria, and in particular being located more than 150m from any zoned business area (Glenwood Shopping Village) or any "professional office". The subject site is over 1 km from Glenwood Shopping village and will not have minimal, if any, impact on the commercial viability or integrity of that Centre.

51 The Town planners also agreed that in their opinions the concerns of the objectors on unauthorised use, non-compliance with distance separation, carparking, traffic congestion have been dealt with sufficiently that any impacts would be reduced to acceptable levels. They noted that the surgery is a permissible use in the residential zone and therefore doctors’ surgeries are part of the various uses that provide important services within a residential area.

52 The applicant agreed to additional conditions that include:

• A wheelchair access path be provided from the street and a public footpath be constructed for the full frontage of the site with turf on the footpath reservation except where the path is located.
• Gates on the drive entries to avoid unwanted out-of-hours use.
• The landscape plan be amended to accommodate the changes.

Conclusions

53 The Respondent was concerned that the definition of “professional consulting rooms” only allow three doctors to practice from the rooms. The Applicant has said and Mr Carr confirmed the usual modus operandii is for doctors to move between various consulting rooms on different days of the week or as required by appointments. I note this practice has four locations. Also I note the respondents draft conditions allow for three doctors at any one time. I have formed the opinion that is a practical interpretation of the definition because it is silent on that issue, and leaves open that interpretation.

54 The respondent wanted in draft condition 78 for the car park to be removed if the consulting rooms cease on the site in the future. This was said to enable it to become a garden and therefore fit better into the residential streetscape. The applicant opposed the condition. I have formed the opinion it is a reasonable condition unless the council has approved another permissible use that requires the car park before the practice closes. I amend it accordingly.

55 The prevention of unwanted use of the carpark out-of-hours agreed by the applicant, requires an addition to Condition 66 to require: “The carpark gates to be closed each night after the last patient and/or non-resident staff member leaves the site. The carpark gates to be left open only after the first non-resident staff member arrives each morning, or 8am whichever comes first.”

56 The draft conditions ask for a palisade fence on the front boundary. Part of the front boundary already has a brick fence, and the subject plans show this being extended across the frontage and around the front landscape areas to stop cars in the carpark intruding on the vegetation. The respondent agreed to the brick fences as shown with gates on the driveways. Condition 37(a) is amended accordingly. Also Condition 37(b) requires a paling or a colorbond fence on the other boundaries. A new colorbond fence is already erected so the condition need only require that it be maintained and replaced if damaged.

57 A further provision is required in Condition 38 to provide for the updating of the landscape plan to accord with all the conditions of consent, and to maintain the vegetation into the future in Condition 75. As a further precaution it is necessary for car wheel-stops as shown on the plans around the perimeter of the carpark to prevent damage to the side and rear fences and to protect the vegetation.

58 The respondent also wanted a sunset clause in Condition 4 of 12 months as a trial for the proposal after which the applicant would have to lodge a fresh development application or a s96 application to delete the condition.

59 The applicant did not want that condition, especially as it was put as unreasonable for the time limit. For council to receive a fresh or a s96 application and determine it before expiry, the documents would have to be lodged 6 months before the expiry date. Also since the period commenced at the date of any consent, the construction time for the carpark etc would further reduce the 12 months. Effectively it would be only a 6 month consent and the cost of this proposal is considerable and the use may be refused again.

60 Also the applicant wanted to delete the first paragraph of Condition 22 and part 22(c) that would change the name from “Parklea Medical Centre”. That has been its business name for many years and it is advertised as that. A change is not reasonable. It can be categorised under the statutes as “professional consulting rooms”, but it is quite common for a business name to be different to the statutory definition of the use.

61 I agree with that for instance, a footware shop as approved can be named and advertised as “Athletes’ Foot”. A restaurant approval may be named and advertised as “Jelly fish”, or “Last Train to Bombay”. I agree with Mr Carr that the use can be described by a number of common titles and the existing name is one of those.

62 On the plans I note that here are in fact 10 car spaces along the north boundary, one of which is not numbered making 11 spaces in the carpark with the ambulance bay. With those and the two carspaces in the garage that provides 13 carspaces on-site. That is well in excess of council’s controls and comes close to satisfy the apparent additional demand observed by the neighbours. The un-numbered space is not nominated as a turning bay, and being the closest to the street it is unsuitable for a garbage bay due to streetscape impact. Condition 30(a) asks for a line-marked turning bay, but as I have described above, the manoeuvring aisle varies between 6.5m and 11m in width providing ample space to turn on site so cars and service vehicles can enter and leave in a forward direction. I delete Condition 30(c) and insert in lieu the words: “The access aisles and driveway to be kept clear of parked cars to facilitate ambulances, service vehicles, visitors and patients to turn their vehicles on-site in order to enter and exit in a forward direction.”

63 The draft conditions for “Protection of Residential Amenity Nos 69 and 73” and for “Operational Matters (Environmental Health) Nos 80(c), (d), (e), (f), (g)” are aimed at keeping waste, especially medical waste, in secure receptacles and kept without odours, noise or pollution and in locations away from view in the streetscape.

64 Since there is no location on the plans or the application documents to locate garbage receptacles, I add Since there is no location on the plans or the application documents to locate garbage receptacles, I add “Condition 80(h): The garbage receptacles be located in a secure enclosure in the rear courtyard of the building against the western fence. Garbage receptacles, except for medical waste, may be put out on the street for council collection on appropriate days and retrieved to the secure enclosure as soon as collected.”

65 I add to Condition 80(c) that: “Medical waste shall be kept in a secure location accessible only by the staff of the practice and the authorised waste contractor.”

66 In regard to the hours of operation, I see the draft conditions provide for opening from 9 am to 4 pm Saturdays. In order to retain acceptable residential amenity at weekends I see no reason to extend the hours to 4 pm especially when the applicants own statement of Environmental Effects says 9 am - 1 pm Saturdays.

67 The other matter of concern to me is the traffic and parking congestion shown in evidence with the current practice of patients parking on the street. During the construction of the car park, drive entries and drainage system there could be several weeks when the car park is unusable. Construction vehicles added to the patients cars could cause unacceptable congestion. I bear in mind also that Glenwood Park Drive is a bus route and hindrance of public transport is highly undesirable. If the usual process of approval and construction had been followed, the practice would not operate until all works are completed. Therefore I require that: “Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate that a Traffice Management Plan including patient/visitor/staff/construction/construction workers vehicles be prepared and lodged with Council’s Traffic Engineer for approval. If the Council Traffic Engineer is not satisfied that traffic and parking congestion can be avoided during the car park drive entries and drainage construction period then the practice must close from the day before construction commences on those works, and not re-open until the day after the Council’s Traffic Engineer certifies the car park and drive entries are completed satisfactorily and ready for use. ”

68 Further since the practice is already operating the works should be carried out within the shortest time practical. It is my opinion four months is a reasonable period from the date of the consent allowing for the Christmas period. So I also require that: “The car park, drive entries and drainage works to be completed within calendar four months of the date of the consent, and all other works completed within six months.”`

69 In the case of the proposed time limit of any consent, or trial period as it is said, I have formed the opinion that the medical practice, if limited by the conditions of consent as in Exhibit 5 and as amended above, will ameliorate the impacts on residential amenity of its neighbours in Glenwood Park Drive and traffic parking and safety such that there are no longer reasons sufficient for its refusal. As a result I delete Condition 4 and insert in lieu the condition above regarding a Traffic Management Plan and construction periods.

70 Therefore the Orders of the Court are:

1. The appeal is upheld subject to conditions.
2. That development consent for the use as professional consulting rooms at Nos 340-342 Glenwood Park Drive with ancillary carparking is granted subject to the conditions in Annexure A hereto.
3. The exhibits are returned to the parties except Exhibits C, D, 3 and 5.


1.

___________________

ljr

- 2 -