By CAM LUCADOU-WELLS
A TEMPLE squeezed into a house in Springvale has won a planning appeal to cram in more worshippers.
The Chin Lien Quan Yin temple at 56 Queens Avenue – after being knocked back twice by Greater Dandenong Council – was granted the right to host up to 50 worshippers every second Sunday by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The eight-year-old temple had last year promised to end some practices that irritated neighbours, such as all-day karaoke opera singing, on-site curry cook-ups, parking over driveways and next to fire hydrants, and thick plumes of incense smoke.
Chin Lien Chinese Association of Victoria Australia honorary advisor Stan Chang said he “knew the council was wrong from day one”.
He vowed karaoke and cooking would remain barred from the temple, and non-smoke incense and exhaust fans to disperse incense fumes would continue to be used.
“There will be nothing outside of the main activity of the temple … which is worshipping.
“We’ve made a lot of concessions. To conduct a long-term operation you have to put these measures in place.”
The VCAT hearing was told the council’s officers had observed “on at least one occasion” more visitors than the permitted 15.
Tribunal senior member Laurie Hewet stated that objector Corine Trimble and the council identified overflow car parking and traffic congestion as an “issue of major concern” on those occasions.
Greater Dandenong councillors had voted down the proposal in June 2013, citing a lack of on-site parking and a lack of space for worshippers in the temple.
Mr Hewat said car parking beyond the 10 on-site spaces was “capable of being accommodated … within immediate vicinity of the site, including on-street parking.”
He stated that increasing the venue’s attendance from 15 worshippers to 50 for two Sundays a month was a “small proportion” of the site’s total use.
Ms Trimble – whose house is little more than a metre from the temple – had acknowledged a reduction in the “incidence and severity of odours” due to the temple’s initiatives, Mr Hewet stated.
“I am not persuaded that the conduct of the applicant in relation to previous non-compliances prevents me from assuming that permit conditions … will be complied with.”
Mr Hewat required a management plan to control on and off-site parking, to ensure no more than 50 attendees and for methods to minimise odours escaping to neighbouring properties.
