Mr. Kojo Adjei, Senior Statutory Planner, City of Casey

1 This is an application under Sec. 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against the Casey City Council's refusal to grant a permit for the use and development of a 110 place child care centre at 1-29 Brundrett Road, Narre Warren North. The grounds of refusal relate to the proposal being inconsistent with Clause 22.08 regarding location of child care centres, lack of connectivity between the proposed use and neighbourhood nodes, detrimental effect on the proper long term access management of Brundrett Road, precedent, adverse impact on amenity of adjoining residential area, and orderly and proper planning of the area.

2 The review site is located on the south side of Brundrett Road east of Narre Warren North Road, Narre Warren North. The site is part of a larger parcel of land approved for a new subdivision known as the Garden Court Estate. This estate has a total area of 10.58 hectares.

3 Stage 1 of this subdivision, comprising of 17 lots located on the eastern edge of the subdivision has been completed, with new houses currently under construction. The review site is located in stage 2 of this subdivision. Plans for Stage 2 have yet to be submitted for certification, and hence not developed.

4 The site to be used for the proposed child care centre is proposed Lot 38 in Stage 2 of the approved subdivision. It is irregular in shape, with a frontage of approximately 33.6 metres, a depth of 67 metres, and an area of 3119 sq m.

5 An old dwelling on site was burnt down and is now vacant land.

6 Brundrett Road at the moment is made to urban standard only up to Stage 1 of the subdivision. The section outside the review site, in Stage 2, is not yet made to such standard and not sealed with kerb and channel.

7 This part of Narre Warren North is a new residential area, with new subdivisions and land yet to be developed as urban areas. The site is approximately 2.8 km from the Fountain Gate Narre Warren Regional Shopping centre.

8 As a way of background, Council advised that there was another application for a child care centre in this subdivision. Application P115/05 for that centre at Lot 18 was refused by Council on 14 July 2005. The review applicant was an objector. That lot is located at the corner of Brundrett Road and the newly created Rose Garden Court, the internal road into this estate. One of the grounds of refusal was also its reliance on a local street for access.

9 The proposal is to develop a single storey complex to be used for a 110-place child care centre. The front 26 metres of the site, which is affected by an electricity easement, is to be used for the car parking, comprising of 25 car spaces and an area for short term parking and a drop off zone. The rear 10 metres are to be used for play areas for the various age groups of children.

10 One of the features of the development is the relocation of the former farm house from its original location and uses it for staff amenities and offices of the centre. This is the building that was burnt down. If approved, the permit holder is to re-construct the building.

11 Vehicular access to the centre is proposed to be from Brundrett Road by means of a one-in and one-out driveway towards the eastern end of the site.

12 The child care centre will employ 17 staff, operate between 6:30am and 7:30pm.

13 The review site is located in the Residential 1 Zone of the Casey Planning Scheme ("the Scheme"). A permit is required for the use and development of a child care centre.

14 It is affected by Development Plan overlay DPO2 (Intermediate Density Residential Area). A minimum lot size of 2000 sq m applies in this overlay. All the lots approved in the subdivision meet this requirement. Council advised that the City of Casey Cell "N" Strategy is the approved development plan pursuant to this overlay.

15 Other relevant Clauses of the Scheme are 11, 12, 14, 22.05 (Residential Development), 22.08 (Non-Residential areas Policy) and 65.

16 At the hearing, both parties relied on written and oral submissions. At the conclusion of the hearing, I indicated that decision is reserved and that I would inspect the site and surrounding area.

17 Having heard the submissions, reviewed the Scheme and inspected the site, I find Council's grounds of refusal relating to access and location of the proposed centre justified. I find that vehicular access to the centre has not been resolved, and the location of the centre not consistent with planning policies of the Scheme.

18 This review is not about other aspects of the proposal. The scale and design of the buildings, being low scale and well setback from boundaries raise no design concern. The layout of car parking is appropriate. As for the proposal to reconstruct the original farm house, I am not persuaded that there should be credit or bonus for the reconstruction. The house no longer exists, its heritage value not established, and from a physical expression point of view, it has undergone substantial alterations in the external weatherboard replaced by a veneer of brick cladding and other alterations to the verandah.

19 This review calls for the consideration of the approved subdivision within which the site is located. It is comprised of two stages, with Stage 1 completed. New dwellings are under construction and the entry gateway to the estate constructed. The endorsed plan of the subdivision shows a 4-metre wide tree reserve along Brundrett Road, a continuous reserve with no break. The entry to the estate and all lots is from a local road off Brundrett Road named Rose Garden Court. The only vehicular access to the review site based on the approved subdivision is therefore at the end of an internal dead-end street off Rose Garden court.

20 There is no existing access to the review site from Brundrett Road. The submitted plan shows an abandoned existing crossover which is no longer there. The only evidence of any existing vehicular access into what is now stage 2 of the subdivision is a pair of gates in Brundrett Road across proposed Lot 41, marked in the approved subdivision plan and some distance from the review site.

21 The issue of vehicular access to the proposed child care centre is at the heart of this review.

Planning Policies Guiding Non-Residential Development

22 Two local planning policies are relevant: Clause 22.05 (Residential Development), and Clause 22.08 (Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas Policy).

23 The policy of Clause 22.05, as relevant, is for:

•

New communities be provided with neighbourhood facilities including open space that are conveniently located and which can be reached by alternative transport nodes, including walking.

•

Neighbourhood facilities be grouped together to provide a visible focal point which residents can readily identify with which are linked by open spaced and road networks.

24 The policy of Clause 22.08 (Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas Policy) has the following objectives:

•

To allow complementary non-residential uses to be integrated into residential areas.

•

To ensure harmony between residential and non-residential uses.

•

To develop neighbourhood nodes that provide convenience and identity to local communities.

•

In new residential areas, non-residential uses to cluster around planned neighbourhood nodes.

•

Such nodes should be potentially accessible to its intended residential catchment by cycling, walking or public transport, provide opportunities for personal interaction and facilitate surveillance of public areas by residents.

•

...... .....

26 This policy recommended performance standards for certain non-residential uses. For child minding centres, they are:

•

Larger child minding centres in excess of 40 children located along major roads.

•

Car parking provided at the rate of one space per staff member, a drive through drop-off bay for at least three vehicles and one space per 20 children.

•

The scale and form of building design including setbacks, façade treatment, building materials and colour scheme consistent with the surrounding residential environment.

•

Provision of a landscape strip along the street frontage of at least 2.0 metres in width.

27 Against these policies and performance criteria, the problem of the proposal is its location away from a neighbourhood node and access reliant on an internal dead end street.

28 The submitted plans show proposed vehicular access to be from Brundrett Road. The design of access and the number of car parking spaces are appropriate. However, along the entire Brundrett Road frontage is a 4-metre wide tree reserve. This reserve is continuous and is approved as part of the subdivision permit. Based on this approval, there can be no vehicular access from Brundrett Road.

29 Mr. Atkin's argument is that there is an existing access from Brundrett Road, although it has to be relocated from its current location. The approved subdivision, as far as Stage 2 is concerned has not been certified. There is no reason why an easement cannot be created in the plan of subdivision via amended plans. Brundrett Road is an appropriate access as it is a collector street, deemed to be a major road. As for Council's concern that there would be a break in the 4 metre tree reserve along the entire frontage of the subdivision on Brundrett Road, it is not imperative to have this tree reserve. This tree reserve was proposed by the developer and not a requirement of planning policies.

30 All parties agree that access from the internal local road, that is Rose Garden Court is inappropriate. This cal-de-sac is access to at most seven residential properties and is off another local residential street. It is inappropriate to rely on this internal street to provide for a child care centre that has up to 110 places plus staff, parents and visitors. The review site in fact has only an 11 metre frontage to this internal road.

31 My inspection of the site revealed that the internal road that the site would rely on in accordance with the approved subdivision has not been constructed. Brundrett Road for the frontage of the entire Stage 2 has also not been constructed to urban standards as in being sealed with kerb and channel. It is currently not performing the function of a collector street. On that point, it is not yet a major road.

32 I find that the availability of access from Brundrett Road has not been established, taking notice of the approved subdivision and Brundrett Road not an existing major road. Availability of access from Brundrett Road should be something that has been established rather than to be resolved as a permit condition and as an amendment to the endorsed plans of the approved subdivision.

33 If access from Brundrett Road is the only issue of this review, the matter can be dealt with as an interim order so that an opportunity can be given to upgrade the road to a major road and resolve the matter before finally deciding on the proposal. It is not.

34 The policy for non-residential uses in residential areas (Clause 22.08) is clear about clustering such uses in planned neighbourhood nodes, and such nodes should be accessible to its intended catchment area by cycling, walking or public transport, providing opportunities for personal interaction and surveillance from public areas.

35 The review site is not located in such a neighbourhood node. Council advised that apart from the regional activity centre at Fountain Gate, located approximately 2.8 km from the site, the other two approved 'neighbourhood nodes' is along Narre Warren North Road, which is already developed with a range of non-residential uses in churches, an aged care facility, a school and a business complex, and the approved 'node' at the corner of A'Beckett and Narre Warren North Roads.

36 I agree with Council that the location of the site away from such a node and in the midst of a residential area does not meet the locational criteria for a non-residential use pursuant to Clause 22.08.

37 Mr. Atkins argued that there is a need for a child care centre for this part of Narre Warren North, or within this 'cell' (Cell 'N' on which the approved Development Plan pursuant to the Development Plan Overlay was based). He submitted that it may be policy preference to locate such a use in an identified cluster or neighbourhood node, it is simply unachievable if the Cell plan is adhered to because this plan does not provide for such a centre. The proposal will provide a nett community benefit without causing adverse amenity impact to the area.

38 I accept that a child care centre will be of community benefit to a new residential area, where young couples and young families are likely to be a major component of this community. That is why the Casey Planning Scheme has specific provisions for the planning and development of new communities and new areas in a planned manner. A child care centre located in accordance with the stated policies and overall development strategy in a planned manner is truly proper and orderly planning to reap nett community benefit.

39 The proposed child care centre has two problems: uncertainty of access from a future major road and its location contrary to planning policies of the Scheme.

40 On that basis, I find Council's refusal of the facility justified.

41 For the above reasons, the decision of Council is affirmed and that no permit must be issued.