By Violet Li
A proposed childcare centre in Cranbourne North has met with opposition from an adjoining property owner, who is ready to build their own childcare centre.
Yet the state’s planning tribunal has ruled the two childcare centres can operate side-by-side without significant cumulative impact.
Casey Council granted a planning permit for the use and development of a childcare centre on the site at 24 Huon Park Road in Cranbourne North for up to 86 children, later revised to 95 children, with a reduction of two parking spaces.
The adjoining property owner at 26 Huon Park Road took his opposition to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), as they already hold a planning permit for the use and development of a childcare centre for up to 112 children on their land. This means Huon Park Road will see two neighbouring childcare centres in the future if both are constructed.
The objector argued that having two childcare centres operating on adjoining sites would create an “unacceptable cumulative impact” on local traffic and street parking.
They submitted that the childcare centre should not be proposed on Huon Park Road, a collector road, when combined with the approved childcare centre on their adjoining property.
Casey Council claimed that the road is capable of carrying the additional traffic generated without exceeding the daily threshold number.
The traffic expert witness opined that the intersection treatment with South Gippsland Highway to the west of the proposed site makes this particular collector street suitable for childcare centre access.
VCAT member Cassandra Rea stated that the two adjacent childcare centres were an appropriate town planning outcome.
“The co-location of the two childcare centres will minimise impact to residential interfaces whilst forming a small hub with the parkland across the road,” it stated.
“I am not persuaded that there is a cumulative impact if both childcare centres commence operation.”
The objector was critical about whether the most recent proposal fulfils a demonstrated local community need.
Rea noted that “a demonstrated need for a facility or use may be a relevant factor in a decision but lack of a need will rarely, if ever, be a ground for refusing to grant a planning permit”.
The objector also argued that the parking reduction was unreasonable and that relying on-street parking would aggravate local congestion.
The tribunal stated there is the availability of on-street parking to accommodate the two car spaces not provided on-site.
“If the approved 112-place childcare centre on the adjoining site at 26 Huon Park Road is ultimately constructed and becomes operational, it is my view that both childcare centres can co-exist and operate without creating adverse traffic or parking impacts in the precinct,” it stated.
“Any parking on the street will be in the nature of minutes, rather than for any significant amount of time.”
The tribunal varied the council’s decision, granting the permit with additional conditions and dismissed the objection.
