By Ethan Benedicto
A new childcare centre in Narre Warren South has been given the green light by VCAT, despite protests from Casey Council and local residents.
The planning application, lodged by Bonanni Construction Group Pty Ltd in early 2024, is for a single-story childcare centre for 65 children in 1 Hillsmeade Drive, just next to Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road.
The 2000 square-metre space will house – including the centre, relocated play areas as well as a 14-space car park at the rear.
Operating times will be from 6:30am to 6:30pm, after the decision was made by the VCAT Tribunal on Thursday, 22 May.
The existing dwelling will be demolished with all trees removed; the centre will contain activity rooms, admin areas and outdoor play spaces.
The location is near Casey Central, which is roughly 500 metres south and designated as a major activity centre, and is also in close proximity to a bus stop.
Roughly between April to May 2024, Casey failed to make a decision on the application within the prescribed timeframe, that being 60 days.
A year later, in April of 2025, the three-day hearing saw appearances from Bonanni, represented by barrister Alex Gelber, Casey, represented by town planner James Stuart-Menteth, and nine local residents; one of them representing an additional nine.
During this time, issues that were hotly debated revolved around neighbourhood character, traffic and safety, landscaping, amenity impacts and community needs.
Casey, while failing to make a decision in time, later informed the tribunal that it would have refused the planning permit based on the aforementioned concerns.
Looking at neighbourhood character, the council’s grounds for refusal were that the proposal was said to be in conflict with the existing low-density residential feel of Hillsmeade Drive.
Furthermore, the council also argued that the design and use would not preserve the area’s character and would also have a visual and functional impact on the street.
Likewise, the residents held the same concerns, and that a non-residential use like a child care centre would not be appropriate in a quiet street.
The residents also emphasised the unique cul-de-sac layout of the street, as well as large garden-style lots and the overall tranquil atmosphere.
Casey also argued on the grounds of the lack of demonstrated community benefit, where they referred to Clause 22.02 of the Casey Planning Scheme, stating that the childcare centre failed to fulfil a demonstrated community need.
It was also highlighted that the site was not near co-located services, activity centres, or major roads, which are preferred locations for these developments.
Residents highlighted noise, with concerns that children playing, staff activity, and early morning vehicle movement would disturb nearby homes.
Casey council also touched on amenity, and that increased activity in the area would negatively impact the peaceful residential homes.
Traffic was both touched on by the council and residents, where their concerns over the increased traffic also included the lack of a proper footpath, and potential parking overflow, traffic queues and blind spots.
The site has been popular in terms of recent proposals, where in 2019, a permit was granted for the use as a medical centre with three practitioners, and more recently in 2022, an application for the use and development of, also a childcare centre, was refused by the Tribunal in B Investments Pty Ltd v Casey CC.
This refusal was based on the lack of demonstrated need, poor neighbourhood character response, intensity of use, amenity impact, and layout concerns.
This time, the Tribunal’s response on neighbourhood character was that they found that this recent application is an improvement over the 2022 version, especially due to the single-story scale, the relocation of the car park to the rear (instead of the front) and substantial landscape buffers.
The front fence was set back nine metres and was considered consistent with the nearby fencing patterns, where the shade sails in the front yard were deemed to be comparable to domestic structures like carports or arbours.
When it came to amenities and noise concerns, the Tribunal said that the children’s play noise is generally acceptable in residential areas, the Tribunal quoting 1978 VCAT principle that “it would be a sad day when the laughter of little children becomes a nuisance”.
It was further noted that play areas were moved away from shared boundaries, car park noise is buffered by the building, and a 1.8-metre fence would be installed on sensitive boundaries.
The operation times and generated noise were also deemed to be manageable and in line with the expectations of a suburban area.
The Tribunal agreed that Hillsmeade Drive is unique, determining it from a traditional cul-de-sac, seeing as that it forms part of a larger cul-de-sac network, and already experiences 460 vehicle movements per day.
Expert evidence from traffic engineer Mr Morello detailed that the proposed use would add 260 vehicle movements per day, with a projected total of 760 movements, remaining well below the design threshold.
Concerning non-residential uses, the Tribunal acknowledged Clause 22.02, but also acknowledged planning scheme Amendment C284 around community need, neighbourhood character and location near services.
Ultimately, however, the Tribunal decided that childcare centres are inherently community-serving facilities, and noted that the proximity to major roads and a nearby activity centre (Casey Central) made the site reasonably located.
The lack of community need was also considered not integral by the Tribunal, adding that it is rarely a valid ground to refuse a permit.
