Planning Application: Hume Childcare Pty Ltd v Maroondah City Council

This case relates to an appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal against a decision by the Maroondah City Council to refuse to grant a permit for the construction of a 139 place childcare centre at Canterbury Road, Heathmont. A number of local residents also opposed the development. The case is interesting as it outlines the approach taken in Victoria in relation to planning applications and local need. As stated by the Tribunal (at paras.22-23, 25):

In submitting that the capacity of the centre is excessive, Mr Davidson and other neighbours submit that there is not a demonstrated need for the proposed number of places and that there are other existing and planned centres nearby to fulfil any local need for childcare.
The Tribunal has often commented that in assessing whether a proposal services a local need, a proposal does not need to demonstrate economic viability. Economic viability is a matter that sits outside of planning considerations. The question of need, in a town planning sense, is usually to determine if there is a need for a service that may outweigh amenity impacts that may arise from the proposed use. For a non-residential use in a residential zone, this is in effect a question of whether the use, that may have character and amenity impacts that are different to residential use, can be justified and is reasonable because of the benefits the use brings to the area by way of fulfilling a local need for that use.....

In the case before us, we accept that there must be some local need, otherwise the proponent would not be pursuing the application as it would not be economically viable. However, while an additional childcare centre in the general residential area may be viable, nothing was put to us that this is the only site that could accommodate demand for childcare places in the local area, thereby elevating the issue of need in an assessment against other matters.

The Tribunal assessed the amenity impacts and concluded that "[w]e are satisfied the proposed use does not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts by way of noise, traffic, on-street car parking overlooking, or visual bulk." (para. 68). The Tribunal then assessed whether the proposed development was consistent with the character of the area and concluded (at para. 104):

We are satisfied that both the built form and any impacts of the scale of use are reasonable for the site location. We find the proposal is not too intense and therefore, for the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted in accordance with the conditions set out in Appendix A.