Media response - VCAT decision in Oakleigh
Published on 15 August 2024
Approach from The Age
Questions received regarding a VCAT decision about a gymnasium operating in Oakleigh.
- Why did the council grant Derrimut a permit to build such a large gym in this location?
- Does the council still believe it's an appropriate location, given the proximity to businesses and residents?
- Can you confirm that there were only 20 parking spaces assigned with the planning permit? Why was more parking not required to be built? Did the council anticipate that parking would be a problem?
- Business owners say they were not consulted about the original planning application, and they would have opposed the plans given the chance. Why did the council not seek feedback from neighbouring businesses given the scale of the project?
- Can the council please outline what the new parking restrictions are in the area? I understand some streets are 30-min, some are 90-min.
- Business owners say that staff and customers continue to face parking difficulties, and that rubbish is being strewn around from gym-goers. What is the council's view on this? Does the council sympathise with business owners?
- Is the council also aware of complaints from traders about antisocial behaviour stemming from the gym and its members? Can the council outline some of the behaviour it is concerned about?
- Residents are unhappy with new parking restrictions on residential streets as they do not believe they solve parking pressures or dangerous driving, but forces them to pay for permits. What is the council's view? Does the council sympathise with residents?
- The gym and gym members are facing impacts to the experience of the gym from having queues outdoors due to patron limits, and there is frustration at the council for having both allowed the development in the first place and attempting to enforce patron limits. What is the council's view?
- How would Monash Council characterise its dealings with Derrimut?
- How does the council feel about how Derrimut has met permit requirements?
- VCAT's interim order allows for a significant increase in patron numbers. What does the council think of this? What outcome is being hoped for in November?
- How many complaints has the council received regarding Derrimut?
- Derrimut has acquired land for extra parking. Why hasn't this application been fast tracked to alleviate some pressures?
- How does the council feel the issues can be resolved? How can the 180-or-more patron limit be managed long-term in such a car-reliant area?
Response
Why did the council grant Derrimut a permit to build such a large gym in this location?
Does the council still believe it's an appropriate location, given the proximity to businesses and residents?
Council approved a gym for 180 people in December 2022 within an existing building. The property is zoned Industrial 1 Zone and a gym is not considered unusual and is permitted within this zone if a planning permit is obtained.
The planning permit issued contains various conditions, and compliance with these would minimise impacts on surrounding properties.
Can you confirm that there were only 20 parking spaces assigned with the planning permit? Why was more parking not required to be built? Did the council anticipate that parking would be a problem?
The planning permit includes the use of nine on-site car parking spaces, 58 leased spaces on the corner of White Street and Bonham Crescent, and 44 shared spaces with other businesses.
The Planning Report provided with the application demonstrated that 180 patrons could be sufficiently accommodated within the available 111 car parking spaces. Parking was not anticipated to be a problem if the permit was not breached.
Business owners say they were not consulted about the original planning application, and they would have opposed the plans given the chance. Why did the council not seek feedback from neighbouring businesses given the scale of the project?
The application was advertised in accordance with relevant legislation between 17 November 2022 and 5 December 2022. This included notices to surrounding property owners and occupiers, in addition to two signs erected on the site. No objections were received.
Can the council please outline what the new parking restrictions are in the area? I understand some streets are 30-min, some are 90-min.
Parking restrictions in the local street network include a mix of 30, 60 and 90 minute spaces. These were determined over two rounds of consultation with residents and business owners The attached map details how these restrictions have been implemented.
Business owners say that staff and customers continue to face parking difficulties, and that rubbish is being strewn around from gym-goers. What is the council's view on this? Does the council sympathise with business owners?
Council have a robust system for residents and traders to be able to report dumped rubbish over the phone or through our website and it is promptly actioned. We have had some, but not a significant number of complaints about dumped rubbish or waste in the area.
Council does sympathise with business owners, but we have also seen as our activity centre and industrial areas, change and new businesses come in and in our residential areas as development increases, pressure on parking may increase.
A significant issue here has been the ongoing non-compliance of the business with their planning permit. We have and will continue to work with businesses to managing parking in the area.
Residents are unhappy with new parking restrictions on residential streets as they do not believe they solve parking pressures or dangerous driving, but forces them to pay for permits. What is the council's view? Does the council sympathise with residents?
Council understands that the much greater number than expected using the gym has had an impact on both local businesses and residents. Several actions have been undertaken to mitigate the parking impacts
Businesses
Council has not received any direct complaints from businesses since these restrictions were put in place earlier this year. We encourage any businesses facing difficulties to contact us directly.
Residents
Installation of parking restrictions was Council’s immediate available option to manage the dramatic increase in parking and restore balance to the area. Since these were introduced, there has been minimal feedback from residents.
Eligible households can receive three free parking permits and a fee applies for one additional permit.
Two traffic surveys were conducted in December 2023 and July 2024 following reports of dangerous driving. These showed the average speed of vehicles were significantly below the 50km/h limit. Both surveys showed that 3% of vehicles travel at a speed of between 50 and 60 km/h.
Other measures like road humps can be considered if interventions are needed, but speed does not appear to be an issue currently.
Further observations have found a higher frequency vehicles that make a lot of noise when accelerated in low gears. Whilst loud and disturbing to residents, this is not something Council can act on or enforce. This is a matter for Victoria Police.
Restrictions have been monitored and, in some cases, adjusted, since their initial installation. We will continue to adjust restrictions as necessary to ensure an equitable arrangement for all users.
We have seen some improvement in parking and in particular dangerous parking. We continue to patrol the area and issue fines where illegal parking is found. We agree that compliance with the planning permit will assist, and we have matters before VCAT currently in relation to this.
How many complaints has the council received regarding Derrimut?
Is the council also aware of complaints from traders about antisocial behaviour stemming from the gym and its members? Can the council outline some of the behaviour it is concerned about?
53 complaints have been received regarding the use of the gym, overflow car parking and illegally parked cars within the vicinity of the site since the operation of the gym has commenced. Council has not been asked to respond to complaints about anti-social behaviour.
The gym and gym members are facing impacts to the experience of the gym from having queues outdoors due to patron limits, and there is frustration at the council for having both allowed the development in the first place and attempting to enforce patron limits. What is the council's view?
Council approved the planning permit for 180 patrons. Management of the gym and how it operates in terms of notifying patrons of capacity numbers is up to the relevant gym operator and not Council.
This is a matter for them to manage with their members. If the location is not appropriate to their needs, they are able to consider more suitable premises that may be able to accommodate increased numbers, but a planning permit is a legally enforceable document that must be complied with.
Council has been proactive in offering solutions to the gym operator to alleviate this frustration for patrons such as providing a live active availability number of patrons online for ease of access and to avoid a gym member having to queue.
An application to amend the planning permit has been received by Council. This amended application seeks to formally amend the planning permit to increase patron numbers as follows:
- 295 patrons on weekdays between 7:00am-6:00pm;
- 365 patrons on weekdays between 6:00pm and 7:00pm;
- 440 patrons on weekdays between 7:00pm and 7:00am;
- 440 patrons on weekends.
Council has sought further information from the permit applicant.
Council must consider all applications for a planning permit, considering the submissions of any objectors as well as any supporting advice and evidence that may be provided by the permit applicant, particularly when it comes to traffic impacts and car parking.
Once Council’s assessment which will include formal notification of the proposal to surrounding businesses and residents, is completed then Council officers will form a position whether it be to support an application (subject to any relevant conditions or changes) or not.
How would Monash Council characterise its dealings with Derrimut?
How does the council feel about how Derrimut has met permit requirements?
Council has been proactive in liaising with the gym owners to ensure that they comply with their planning permit requirements.
Council has observed non compliances with the planning permit and have acted accordingly. Council has sought interim enforcement orders at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) requiring the operators of Derrimut Gym to comply with the condition of their Planning Permit.
Whilst Council did all that it could, VCAT formed a different view having regard to the question of where the ‘balance of convenience’ lay and the gym may continue to operate with increased patron numbers in the order of:
- No more than 295 patrons to be present within the gym on weekdays between 7am and 6pm
- No more than 365 patrons to be present within the gym on weekdays from 6pm to 7pm
- No more than 440 patrons to be present within the gym on weekdays from 7pm-7am and on weekends
until such time that a final determination on a full enforcement proceeding is made or a consent position is reached.
A full enforcement proceeding is scheduled to be heard on the 18 and 19 November 2024.
VCAT’s interim order allows for a significant increase in patron numbers. What does the council think of this? What outcome is being hoped for in November?
Council is disappointed with the interim decision to allow for additional patron numbers further to the approved 180 patrons approved in the Planning Permit as it has resulted in amenity impacts to the surrounding area by way of overflow car parking into the surrounding streets.
Derrimut has acquired land for extra parking. Why hasn't this application been fast tracked to alleviate some pressures?
An application to amend the planning permit has been received by Council.
This amended application seeks to formally amend the planning permit to increase patron numbers generally in accordance with the above capacities. Council has sought further information from the permit applicant, and the permit applicant has until mid-August 2024 to submit this information or request an extension of time.
Following the submission of the requested information, the amended planning permit application will be extensively advertised given the significant increase in patron numbers sought. Public notification of the application will take place in accordance with the requirements of relevant legislation and in the form of the display of signage on site and the forwarding of smaller notices to surrounding property owners and occupiers, including anyone who has contacted Council with concerns.
The public notification period of an application has a prescribed timeframe of 14 days and does not indicate Council’s support of a proposal but is instead part of the planning permit process that allows for review and comment from those surrounding and adjoining property owners and occupiers that may be affected by a proposal.
Council must consider all applications for a planning permit, considering the submissions of any objectors as well as any supporting advice and evidence that may be provided by the permit applicant, particularly when it comes to traffic impacts and car parking. Once Council’s assessment is completed, Council officers will form a position whether it be to support an application (subject to any relevant conditions or changes) or whether it doesn’t. The planning system is structured in such a way that enables both an applicant and objectors the opportunity to appeal a decision of Council at VCAT if they are unhappy with Council’s determination.
We are however currently waiting for the required information from the applicant before we can progress the application.
How does the council feel the issues can be resolved? How can the 180-or-more patron limit be managed long-term in such a car-reliant area?
Management of the gym and how it operates in terms of notifying patrons of capacity numbers is up to the operator and not Council. The business is required to comply with the conditions of the Planning Permit and the current interim VCAT order. Whilst compliance with the planning permit is legally required, permit holders must determine the viability of a business having regard to these restrictions.
Issued: 15 August
To: The Age
Quoting: Mayor Cr Nicky Luo