Findings and conclusions
46The substantive issues in this matter concern parking, traffic safety and pedestrian safety as articulated in Contention 2 of council's amended Statement of Facts and Contentions.
47It is agreed that there is limited availability of on-street parking in the general vicinity of the site. Apart from a small portion of Toronto Parade adjacent to the Funeral business, the parking is unrestricted. The experts' parking surveys, agreeing to exclude the commuter parking area adjoining the railway line, indicate reasonable availability of on-street parking in the immediate vicinity in the mornings until 7.30-8.00am. Parking opportunities start to arise again from about 4.00pm. The surveys do not include nearby streets that are within relatively easy walking distance. I accept Mr Keneally's evidence that spaces are available in these streets.
48While I accept that nearby opportunities for drop-offs and pick-ups may be limited, the proposal satisfies the numerical requirements for on-site parking in SDCP. I am satisfied that the designation of the proposed shared parking space as visitor parking before 9.00am and after 3.30pm, the periods recognised by the experts as being the peak periods for drop-off and pick-up, provides sufficient space for parents/carers. I note Mr McLaren's acceptance of this as a way of minimising the potential impacts of queuing on other traffic using Toronto Parade. I am also satisfied the traffic engineers' parking surveys indicate sufficient on-street parking to accommodate a staff member arriving early in the morning. While perhaps having to park further away, it should not be unreasonably difficult for the late shift staff member to find a parking space, if indeed they choose to drive rather than use nearby public transport options.
49Despite the numerical compliance, council presses sub-clauses 53(c) and (e) in SLEP in the context of the preamble in Chapter 7, SDCP that all demand for parking should be accommodated on site. By meeting the specific control in cl. 1.b.35 SDCP requiring childcare centres to provide 1 space for every 4 children in attendance, I find the proposal satisfies objective 1.a.1.a - to provide sufficient parking on site. While the preamble considers that all parking should be accommodated on the site, objective 1.a.1.c. SDCP requires reliance on street parking to be minimised. I note that council, in its Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions, has not specifically raised the removal of one on-street parking space associated with the construction of the driveway onto Acton Street.
50In regards to the findings in Maquire/ Furia, my understanding is that the two childcare centres, the subjects of those proceedings, did not provide a compliant number of parking spaces on site, and site specific conditions of consent were imposed. Therefore, I do not propose to give any weight to that case, as every matter must be determined on its own merits.
51The council raises the possibility of dangerous manoeuvring (such as a right hand turn across the painted median on Toronto Parade), and double parking. These concerns can be given little if any weight as there must be underlying assumption that road rules will be followed. In regards to Toronto Parade, vehicles travelling north can use the roundabout about 300m from the site to safely enable left hand entry to the site. The council has not adduced sufficient evidence to support the installation of a concrete median in Toronto parade opposite the site.
52I am not persuaded that vehicles slowing down to enter the site will create conflict with other vehicles using Toronto Parade. The driveway currently exists in this location and the fact that someone is turning into a driveway, be it into a commercial or residential property, is a normal phenomenon. In considering cl. 53 SLEP, the configuration of the driveway with left turn in and left turn out is agreed by the traffic experts to be the most appropriate design, and safer than a vehicle reversing out onto the street. As discussed during the hearing, the relocation of the shared space and the requirement for parking rear to kerb for all spaces except the disabled space should minimise any additional potential for conflict. I also note the discussions relating to the positioning of the wheel stops in the designated parking spaces.
53Although the applicant complies with the current staffing requirements specified in the Regulations, it accepts council's concerns in regards to the supervision of the 2-3 year olds in the event of a nappy change etc and proposes additional staffing. In providing this additional staff member, the applicant still complies with the parking controls in SDCP, as the controls do not specify the rate at which staff parking must be provided. I find no grounds to require the applicant to go beyond the rates specified in SDCP. I agree with the applicant that little weight can be given to future changes in the Regulations however, the provision of an extra staff member at this stage would numerically satisfy the future ratio.
54In considering cl. 50(2)(c) SLEP, I am satisfied that the design of the entry, exit and on-site car park is unlikely to cause any unreasonable or detrimental traffic-related impacts on nearby residential amenity. There is no evidence that the additional traffic generated by the proposal will have any significant impact on neighbouring properties or on pedestrian movements.
55In regards to noise associated with the development, I note the Addendum Report prepared by Koikas Acoustics Pty Ltd shows a 2.1m high fence achieves a compliant noise level. The report states that a 1.8m fence would result in a non-compliance of 1 dB at one site but could be rendered compliant if the number of 4-6 year old children were split into two groups of 6 children at any one time. Taking into consideration the concerns of the neighbour to the north in regards to light and outlook, I propose to require a 1.8m fence, agreed by the parties to be lapped and capped timber, and a condition limiting the number of children using the outdoor play areas. In this regard, the applicant has agreed to amend the Operational Plan of Management to indicate the play times and numbers of children.
56Having considered the evidence, matters for consideration under s 79C of the EPA Act, and heard from the parties, I find that the development application can be given conditional approval with changes to be made to the Operational Plan of Management and the plans.