Proposed Cranbourne North service met with opposition from neighbouring properties 

A proposed early childhood education and care (ECEC) service in Victoria’s Cranbourne North has met with opposition from an adjoining property owner who is also hoping to build an ECEC service. 

Despite the objections of the neighbour, the state’s planning tribunal has ruled that the two services can operate side by side without significant cumulative impact on the neighbourhood. 

Casey Council granted a planning permit for the use and development of an early childhood service on the site of 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 owner of 26 Huon Park Road argued that having two services on adjoining sites would create an “unacceptable cumulative impact” on local traffic and street parking, submitting that the rival service should not be granted permission to build. 

Council objected to this claim, saying Huon Park Road is capable of carrying the additional traffic generated without exceeding the daily threshold number.

An expert witness added weight to this claim noting that the intersection treatment with South Gippsland Highway to the west of the proposed site makes this particular collector street suitable for ECEC service access.

Commenting on the case VCAT member Cassandra Rea said having two adjacent services was “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,” she stated.

“I am not persuaded that there is a cumulative impact if both childcare centres commence operation.”

Council countered the owner of  26 Huon Park Road’s criticism that the construction of an additional service at 24 Huon Park Road would not fulfil a demonstrated local community need, with Ms Rea saying “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”.

Responding to further objections about parking, the tribunal said on street parking was sufficient to counter the two car spaces not provided on site, adding “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.” 

“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.

To read local coverage of this story please see here.