1

This is Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act matter P2011/2004 regarding the property at 1 Gori Court, Narre Warren North ("subject land"). The proposal as amended was for a child care centre for 60 children plus advertising signs and it was an appeal against Council's Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit. Member Rae had visited the subject land and locality prior to the hearing.

2

Gori Court has 11 residential properties facing onto the court. The lots are all large (about 4,000 square metres) with houses set well back from the court, in fairly open front gardens. Nearly all the lots have no front fences.

3

In terms of the main features of the proposed child care centre, we highlight the following. The proposal here (as amended) is for a facility for 60 children, together with 9 staff. We understand that Council considers 15 on-site car parking spaces as the minimum required under the Planning Scheme.

4

Originally the proposed car parking provision was for 23 car parking spaces, although during the hearing it became obvious that more like 18 spaces are achievable if these spaces are to comply with the relevant applicable minimum dimensions per space. It was common ground that the number of available spaces available per se (ie 18 spaces) is acceptable.

5

The access in and out of the subject land as a child care centre would be via Gori Court rather than Ernest Wanke Road. Access into the subject land would be via the crossover located closer to Ernest Wanke Road on a "in-only" basis, with the other crossover located further away from Ernest Wanke Road to be "out-only".

6

We note the subject land is located on the north-east corner of Ernest Wanke Road and Narre Warren Road, being a busy intersection. It was common ground that there is no direct access to these two main roads from the subject land, due to a 5 metre reserve that runs along the relevant sides of the subject land.

7

In terms of the other details regarding the nature of the proposal, of the site and locality and of the relevant planning controls and policies, to avoid duplication, we rely on the fact that these matters are appropriately dealt with in Council's written submission, a copy of which is held on the Tribunal file (along with the various plans, photos and materials).

8

The relevant controls for a child care centre with advertising signs are the relevant provisions of the Low Density Residential Zone in which the subject land lies, together with the advertising controls contained in Clause 52.05-9 Category 3.

9

We see the key planning issue here as being the operation and applicability of Clause 22.08 (which is the relevant Council policy for non-residential uses in residential areas). We particularly rely on same as there is a specific section in that control dealing with childcare centres.

10

In terms of considering Clause 22.08, we have had particular regard under Clause 22.08-3 to the relevant policy provisions in that sub-clause. In particular, we refer to the first bullet point, which essentially provides that in new residential areas, non-residential uses should be clustered around planned neighbourhood nodes. We also had regard to the general policy aim under the relevant Clause 22.08-3 provisions that "Non-residential developments be planned and designed to cause minimal loss of amenity, privacy and convenience to people living in nearby dwellings", and that "Non-residential uses operate in a manner that causes minimal loss of amenity, privacy and convenience to people living in nearby dwellings".

11

We have also placed weight on the particular provisions in Clause 22.08-3 specifically dealing with "Child Minding Centres", with the first relevant "bullet point" providing that child minding centres in excess of 40 children should be "located along major roads". Obviously this provision is relevant here, since we were looking at a proposed centre for 60 children.

12

Turning then to the merits of the proposal, for the reasons set out below, we are not satisfied that the proposal meets the relevant 22.08 criteria and the planning scheme requirements generally, and hence we have decided to affirm the Council's refusal of the permit.

13

The first point we have had particular regard to is the Applicant's claim that a positive feature of the proposal is the other non-residential uses which exist or are planned for the other three sides of the major Ernest Wanke/Narre Warren Road intersection.

14

Our finding here is that we do not see that there is any demonstrable connectivity between the proposed child care centre and the other existing or planned non-residential uses on the other three sides of the intersection. This is an intersection between two major roads. Narre Warren Road is a dual carriageway. Ernest Wanke Road is a dual carriageway at the intersection and provision has been made for the extra carriageway to be constructed along its full length as traffic builds up. Further, the significant walking distance between the different sides of the intersection, the absence of any pedestrian walking bridges or the like, and the poor connections between the various relevant footpaths make the level of connectivity very low.

15

Accordingly, we are not convinced that the proposal can draw any policy support from the first bullet point in Clause 22.08-3 in terms of the "neighbourhood node" issue.

Likely Impact on Residential Amenity/Character of Gori Court

16

Our second main reason is that, although the site is bounded by two major roads, the effective and primary access to the proposed child care centre would be off a quiet residential (and low density) cul de sac. There is an obvious inconsistency here with the policy statement under Clause 22.08-3 that child minding centres with over 40 children should be located on a main road.

17

We found further support for our reasons in the other general policy objectives under Clause 22.08-3, notably the aforementioned objectives that "Non-residential developments be planned and designed to cause minimal loss of amenity, privacy and convenience to people living in nearby dwellings", and that "Non-residential uses operate in a manner that causes minimal loss of amenity, privacy and convenience to people living in nearby dwellings"

18

Looking at the proposal and whether it would satisfy these relevant policy objectives, on balance we have come to the view that:

•

introduction of the estimated 180 or so new vehicle movements per day;

•

combined with the major changes to the physical appearance of the front of the subject land, in terms of the proposed off-street car parking and landscaping which would extend quite close to the front boundary;

would be quite inconsistent with this 22.08 policy direction of causing minimal loss to residential amenity, privacy and inconvenience. In other words, we have major concerns about not only the conventional traffic impacts upon a quiet cul de sac, but also the likely substantial (negative) changes to the existing low-density and very open feel to Gori Court.

19

In relation to the traffic and parking evidence provided by Mr Sutcliffe in the course of the hearing, we consider that he did seek to tackle the relevant traffic and parking issues in a professional manner. However, we remain of the view that there are major problems with the proposed parking layout, not so much in relation to the number of spaces per se, but more in respect to the tight layout of the car parking (in the context of particular safety concerns here due to very young children having to regularly traverse the car parking area to get into the child care centre).

20

We also have some unsatisfied concerns about the jump in vehicle movements in and out of Gori Court movements from roughly 100 or so to about 300 traffic movements per day, in terms of likely delays and problems for vehicles exiting or entering the court. Apart from the general submissions made to us about the existing substantial traffic pressures on Ernest Wanke Road, some other particular traffic problems raised were those caused by buses and parents' vehicles occupying the slip lane intended for traffic wishing to turn left into Gori Court from the intersection, queries about the practicality of right-turning vehicles onto Ernest Wanke Road being able to "squat" in the centre turning lane at peak times, in the context of increasing traffic volumes on Ernest Wanke Road because of its direct connection to the Monash freeway.

21

In summary, we have considered the proposal in light of the relevant Planning Scheme policies and controls, and in particular the requirements of Clause 22.08. We have found that, with particular regard to our unresolved concerns about the lack of connectivity of the proposal with nearby existing or planned non-residential uses together with likely traffic management problems and the likely impact of the proposal on neighbourhood amenity/privacy/convenience, we see no reason to vary the Council Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit.