Comments made here were sent to Casey City Council. Add your own comment.
There is no Public Notification displayed for this application and VCAT has already denied application for child centre and or medical centre
Not sure how is this possible as VCAT had ruled against this proposal only last year.
I live in the estate and have not been notified of any new application related to this address neither there has been public notification displayed.
I live in the estate and there has been no signage or public notification at all of this 'new' application. Not only did VCAT reject this same proposal last year, but it was found that the Council also initially failed to adhere to local policies.
I don't understand why another application would even be put in for a childcare centre when VCAT rightly denied an application for the same development just last year and explained in great detail why it was denied, including multiple reasons that would be outside of the applicants ability to address including the fact that the application went against multiple of councils own policies.
Thus far there has been no public advertising and the residents have also not been notified.
As this was knocked back just last year, would appreciate it if Council could keep residents who put in objections last time, informed of any further developments. As far as we know, no one has received an email with any details. How can another permit be submitted for the same thing, when Council has already said no?
This application is absolutely unacceptable as VCAT Senior Member Margaret Baird wrote:
NET COMMUNITY BENEFIT
144. I have referred to the consideration of clause 71.02 earlier.
145. While the amended proposal may improve on the original permit application as emphasised in the Council’s submissions, I find the amended permit application does not meet the test of acceptability under the scheme.
146. I have found that the proposed child care centre has various positive and neutral outcomes. It is consistent with some aspects of policy and I have indicated that I would not refuse a permit on some contested grounds, for example, on-site car parking supply. These findings carry weight.
147. However, the proposal does not meet multiple elements in local policies. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed facility are unacceptable. Of most concern are that the proposed child care centre does make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the low density residential within which it is proposed to be located. The centre presents in a manner that fails to respect the character of this low density residential area. It also has some unacceptable amenity and character implications as a consequence of the intensity of the proposed land use.
148. Having considered and weighed all relevant matters, I find the permit application does not achieve a net community benefit.
CONCLUSION
149. For the above reasons, a permit is not granted.
And Casey Council Officer Ollie Graovac Wrote:
The VCAT decision is now the most recent VCAT decision providing guidance to Clause 22.02 and other elements of the scheme. This case is now used as a precedence for all future applications of a similar nature.
This will continue to be the case until newer VCAT decisions suggesting otherwise are issued. We have used this case to change our interpretation of policy.
I most strongly believe that this is a most unsuitable usage for this property. As Margaret Baird, Senior Member of VCAT quoted in clause 147, "The centre presents in a manner that fails to respect the character of this low density residential area. It also has some unacceptable amenity and character implications as a consequence of the proposed land use". She further quotes in clause 148, " Having considered and weighed all relevant matters, I find the permit application does not achieve a net community benefit". She concluded in clause 149, " For the above reasons, a permit is not granted".
From a personal perspective, the proposed land usage would have a profound negative effect on myself regarding personal road usage, both from a vehicle driving perspective through what would become most congested traffic conditions in the immediate area near Lot 1. As there is no footpath along Hillsmeade Drive, I am required to use the road itself when either walking our dog or simply walking on a daily basis for fitness and health reasons. The construction of a childcare centre on Lot 1 would create vehicle traffic conditions that would make my current pedestrian uses of the road unsafe to engage in. Associated roadside parking would add greatly to the dangers and difficulties faced by the local residents, both when on foot or in vehicles.
From a noise perspective, my amenity would also be clearly affected as the proposed site is but several metres from the drive access to my residence. I am 85 years of age. I would be available to speak of my objections at any relevant meeting. Bob O'Neill.
I live across the road from this premises. It has only been twelve months since the last application was rejected by the VCAT. I understand Council does NOT have any control over who lodges what application. However, Council should make a firm decision on the current application and any future applications lodged for high traffic commercial activities.
VCAT ruled against this development only a year ago. Due to the property being unsuitable for the development that this application is seeking once again. If you refer to the VCAT hearing all the reasons as to why it was rejected are evident there. As residents of the Hillsmeade estate we're a close knit community and we will continue to oppose further applications of this nature due to the negative impacts a commercial property would have on the safety, well-being and character of our low density residential estate. We expect Casey Council to take responsibility for the welfare of the Hillsmeade estate residents and uphold the previous rejection ruling as a precedent to reject any further applications of this nature.
I struggle to understand the logic behind this new application. The previous application was rejected by both Casey Council and VCAT. The residents of the area put up strong reasons for this refusal.
Whilst the applicant has made some modifications to their plans, these have not addressed the fundamental issues and concerns regarding safety and access to the site. The position of the site has not changed, the access to the site (both via road and pedestrian) have not changed.
In essence, the site is located on a narrow street (and a no through road), poorly lit with no pedestrian footpath available. The access to the site is only a few metres from a busy main road. The access into the street is often blocked by the adjacent busy bus service, and is extremely dangerous for inexperienced drivers. There is no available crossing over the main road (which has a speed limit of 80km), which would be incredibly dangerous for pedestrians and young children to cross.
There is a nearby childcare centre, located one street away, which have been operating for at least 15 years, and has vacancies available to new intakes. Surely, there is no demand to have a new centre located one street away.
