By CAM LUCADOU-WELLS
A BUDDHIST place of worship in a Doveton residential area has been knocked back by the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal due to its “detrimental” parking overflow.
The place of worship had been operating without planning permission in a large room at the back of a residence on a “modest sized” lot on Cootamundra Street, VCAT member Geoff Rundell stated in his decision on 3 August.
As a consequence, it had received several Casey Council infringement notices.
The building had been a residence for up to five Buddhist monks, and attended by worshippers from Cambodian, Chinese and Vietnamese communities in Doveton and nearby suburbs.
Mr Rundell rejected the monks’ appeal to VCAT for a planning permit for up to 30 worshippers on weekends and a reduction of required on-site car parking from nine spaces to three.
The house is opposite a site approved for a future 250-student private school but that didn’t constitute a commercial precinct or cluster of non-residential uses, Mr Rundell said.
“I think it is a standalone place of worship that is specifically discouraged in planning policy.
The monks’ applicant Chea Thuong Vong argued the indoor services generated little noise, and denied they would cause traffic or parking problems.
He argued the “intensity of use would be similar to residents hosting family and friends.”
Casey Council argued that a shared outdoors meal after the ceremonies generated “excessive” noise, incense smells and food odours for neighbours.
Large numbers had attended on special occasions, the council argued.
“It has no confidence that the place of worship would be limited to 30 persons and two days a week,” Mr Rundell noted – though he stated he had to assume the monks’ compliance with the permit.
Casey submitted the monks’ suggested hard paving parking area at the front of the building limited its landscaping potential and detracted from neighbourhood character.
The place of worship generated a high demand for on-street parking on both sides of Cootamundra Street, Casey argued.
Mr Rundell concluded the place of worship catered to local needs but they didn’t outweigh “location, amenity and appearance considerations”.
“In my view it is an inappropriate location and its appearance does not comfortably fit into the local residential streetscape because of the extent of hard surface in the front setback (used for car parking) and the limited landscaping.”
