parramatta child care centre planning report... · parramatta child care centre planning study...

Parramatta Child Care

Centre Planning Study

Prepared for

Parramatta City Council

Prepared by

newplan Urban Planning Solutions

©Newplan [2007]

This document is the property of Newplan. This document and the information contained in it are solely for the use of the authorised recipient and this document may not be used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that for which it was supplied by Newplan. Newplan makes no representation, undertakes no duty and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information contained in it. Author: G New, S Reilly................................................................................................

Signed: .........................................................................................................................

Date: 15 February 2007..........................................................................................

Distribution: F Roberts.........................................................................................................

Parramatta Child Care Centre Planning Study

Contents

Page Number Executive Summary iv

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Why prepare a development control plan for child care centres in Parramatta? 1

1.3 Purpose of the Study 3

1.4 Study methodology 3

2. Child care strategic context 5

2.1 What is ‘child care’? 5

2.2 Role of government in delivering child care services 6 2.2.1 Commonwealth 6 2.2.2 State 7 2.2.3 Local 7

2.3 Why is child care important? 7

2.4 Designing for quality child care 8

2.5 Development feasibility issues 11 2.5.1 Minimum centre size 11 2.5.2 Viability of workplace-based services 12

2.6 Summary 13

3. Child care in Parramatta 15

3.1 Supply and location of child care services 15

3.2 Demand for child care services 16 3.2.1 Census indicators 16 3.2.2 Demand for care for children under 2 years and 3-5 years 17

3.3 Future demand for child care 20

3.4 Summary and implications for land use planning 21

4. Child care centre planning issues 23

4.1 Statutory requirements 23 4.1.1 Overview 23 4.1.2 Children’s Services Regulation 2004 23 4.1.3 What the Regulation does not address? 25

4.2 Land use planning and development control issues associated with child care centres 26

Page i


4.2.1 Regional environmental plan, local environmental plan and development control plan 26

4.2.2 Implications of the Standard LEP 29 4.2.3 Parramatta Residential Development Strategy 31 4.2.4 Review of development applications 33 4.2.5 Planners’ issues 41 4.2.6 Resident survey 45 4.2.7 Best practice in centre location and design 46 4.2.8 Other councils’ approaches 51

4.3 Summary 51

5. Land use planning options and recommendations 53

5.1 Recommended planning framework and planning objectives 53 5.1.1 Best practice planning principles 53 5.1.2 Development and planning objectives 54 5.1.3 Recommended land use zoning strategy 55

5.2 Outline of draft development control plan 55

References 62

Tables Table 3.1: Child care centres by ward 15 Table 3.2: Children aged 0-5 years 1996 to 2001 16 Table 3.4: Reasons why families use child care in NSW 18 Table 3.5: Provider type 19 Table 3.6: No. of children and child care places by suburb 19 Table 4.1: Permissibility of child care centres 27 Table 4.2: Standard LEP child care land use definitions 29 Table 4.3: Standard LEP child care land use permissibility 30 Table 4.4: Development applications reviewed 33 Table 4.5: Child care centres subject of resident survey 45 Table 4.6: ECA assessed site areas for different sized child care centres 48 Table 4.7: Child care centre space projected space needs table for Shire of Hornsby 49

Figures Figure 1.1: Study process 4 Figure 2.1: Process to secure a license to establish a new children’s service 9

Page ii


Appendices

Appendix A Children’s Services in Parramatta – List and Map

Appendix B Resident Survey

Appendix C Comparison of Other Councils’ Planning Controls

Page iii


Executive Summary

Formal child care services, such as pre-schools and long day care centres, have a significant role to play in a child’s development. Whereas once the education and care of persons aged under 6 years was the principal responsibility of their parents and families, child care provided by accredited and licensed providers has now become commonplace. With historically high rates of workforce participation for women, formal child care services are in fact critical to our quality of life and to community wellbeing.

Local councils face the task of balancing the ongoing demand for child care centres against their impact on the amenity of residential areas. This means both:

providing reasonable and sufficient opportunities for child care centres to be established and meet local demands for this type of facility; and

controlling the location, scale, design, form and layout of facilities so that the amenity of areas surrounding the facilities is maintained.

Parramatta City Council commissioned this study to provide a sound basis for preparation of planning controls and policies in relation to the location and design of new and enlarged child care centres in its area.

The Parramatta Child Care Centre Planning Study examines:

the current environment of child care provision, including legislative and funding arrangements, the extent of services, and the needs of providers and users of child care centres; and

land use planning frameworks, including Council’s current controls, other councils’ approaches to child care centre planning, and best practice design guides.

The Study identifies options for child care centre planning controls and recommends an appropriate mix of controls and policies suitable for application to the different urban contexts that make up the City of Parramatta.

Page iv


1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The Parramatta Local Government Area (LGA) covers an area of 61 square kilometers and comprises 23 suburbs and is the seventh largest LGA in NSW. Parramatta’s population in 2001 was approximately 148,000 residents and this is predicted to increase to between 160,000 and 170,000 by 2026.

The Metropolitan Strategy identifies the LGA as comprising part of the ‘West Central Region’ that is anticipated to accommodate 95,000 more dwellings and 35,000 more jobs by 2031. In addition, Parramatta’s City Centre has been identified as one of several ‘Regional Cities’ and is earmarked for significant development in the future.

Parramatta City Council (Council) has also commenced a large-scale review of its Residential Development Strategy. The review will culminate in the identification of appropriate residential land use zonings to be applied to land across the LGA. The planning philosophy that has been established in the early stages of the review is one of fostering concentrated growth near public transport nodes and existing centres.

It is against this planning context that Council in recent times has been required to consider a number of development applications for new and/or enlarged child care centres on sites throughout the LGA. Community concerns about the perceived amenity impacts of child care centres have been raised in relation to these applications. Council’s land use plans and policies have to date not addressed such matters as preferred locations or design requirements for proposed child care centres. There is thus little guidance for centre proponents and few criteria against which Council and the community can assess the merit of proposals.

Council has commissioned Newplan and Cred Community Planning to assist it in developing land use planning policies for child centre proposals, specifically the preparation of a draft development control plan (DCP) that is to apply to child care centre and pre-school kindergarten proposals.

1.2 Why prepare a development control plan for child care centres in Parramatta?

Council is faced with balancing two important planning objectives in planning for the provision child care in its City:

On the one hand, ready access to quality, organised child care in our modern society is critical to maintaining the quality of life of families. Availability of child care facilities near our homes and workplaces is fundamental to this aim.

On the other, the communities within the City’s residential neighbourhoods legitimately expect that the amenity of their areas is not compromised in terms of reduced safety, excessive noise or traffic disturbance.

Page 1


Council has traditionally supported the provision of local community services in its neighbourhoods by permitting them in most land use zones under the SREP 28 and LEP 2001.

The combined factors of:

increasing demand for organised child care over time;

cost and tenure issues that make it more difficult to provide child care in workplaces;

greater involvement of the private sector in the delivery of organised child care; and

more stringent State and Commonwealth regulations,

have led to more and/or larger child care centres being established in traditional dwelling house neighbourhoods. This has resulted in some centres having impacts upon residents’ amenity and enjoyment of their neighbourhoods.

In short, Council has to balance the ongoing demand for child care centres against their impact on the amenity of residential areas. This means both:

providing reasonable and sufficient opportunities for child care centres to be established and meet local demands for this type of facility; and

controlling the location, scale, design, form and layout of facilities so that the amenity of areas surrounding the facilities is maintained.

The primary mechanisms available to councils to control land use in NSW are local environmental plans and development control plans.

Council desires to have a development control plan applying to child care centres prepared to enable the balance described above to be achieved.

Council has determined that the content of the plan is to meet the following objectives:

Establish the desirable outcomes for child care centres in terms of design.

Ensure that new child care centres respond positively to their context and setting and minimise impacts on the amenity of surrounding properties.

Provide guidance as to the optimum location and number of childcare places in each neighbourhood.

Encourage child care centres that maximise the well being of children in their care.

Provide guidance for Council, the community and operators regarding the development standards that apply to child care centres.

Strengthen Council’s development assessment position when determining development applications for child care centres.

Provide guidance on the notification procedures for development applications in relation to child care centres.

Page 2


1.3 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the Parramatta Child Care Centre Planning Study is to inform the development of a planning framework for child care centres that:

provides guidance as to the optimum location and design of child care centres;

is consistent with legislation/regulations;

represents best planning practice and is capable of responding to emerging trends and issues for the provision of child care services; and

addresses demand for working families; applicants’ need for guidance and certainty; and the wider community’s desire for safe and attractive neighbourhoods.

1.4 Study methodology

This Study employed the following project methodology:

literature review covering best practice planning, regulation, development and management of child care;

review of data on the level of provision of child care and the institutional and statutory framework for delivering child care;

review of population data and projections held/published by Parramatta City Council and the Australian Bureau of Statistics;

review of child care centre development application files held by Council;

discussions with Council planning and community services staff to document planning and delivery issues associated with child care centres and develop planning options;

preparation of this Study document highlighting child care planning issues and suggesting options for the future planning framework; and

workshops with Council staff and Councillors to canvass planning opportunities and options.

The process for the study is described in the chart shown in Figure 1.1.

Page 3


Figure 1.1: Study process

Page 4


2. Child care strategic context

2.1 What is ‘child care’?

Child care is divided into formal care and informal care.

Most formal care is regulated through the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (the Act) and the Children’s Services Regulation 2004 (the Regulation). These statutes regulate ‘children’s services’ in NSW.

Children’s services are defined in the Act as follows:

…a service that provides education or care (other than residential care), or both education and care, whether directly or indirectly, for one or more children under the age of 6 years and who do not ordinarily attend school (disregarding any children who are related to the person providing the care).

The types of formal child care subject to the Act and Regulation are:

Long day care centre – regulated, centre-based care which is available to children between birth and school age for the full day or part day. Centres are usually open for most of the year.

Pre-school – educational and developmental programs for children in the two years before they begin full-time primary school.

Family Day Care – a type of formal care offered in private homes by registered carers, available for full day or part day to children of all ages.

Home based care - a children’s service in which the care (not being care organised or arranged by a family day care children’s service) is provided at the home of the carer, not being the home of any of the children receiving the care (other than a child related to the carer).

Mobile children’s service - a service that visits specific premises, areas or places at specific times for the purpose of providing the care.

The types of formal care not subject to the Act and Regulation are:

Before and/or after school care – a type of formal care available to school-aged children before and/or after school hours.

Occasional care – regulated care which is generally available to children between birth and school age for short periods of time, for example to allow parents to shop, attend appointments, or to take brief breaks from parenting.

Vacation care – a service provided to school age children during the school holidays.

The Act and Regulation also do not affect a range of service types. The following services may be carried out without the need to obtain a license:

a babysitting, playgroup or child-minding service that is organised informally by the parents of the children concerned;

Page 5


a service provided for fewer than 5 children (disregarding any children who are related to the person providing the service) at the premises at which at least one of the children resides, being a service that is not advertised;

a regular child-minding service that is provided in connection with a recreational or commercial facility (such as a gymnasium or a casino), by or on behalf of the person conducting the facility, to care for children while the children’s parents are using the facility,

a service that is concerned primarily with the provision of lessons or coaching in, or providing for participation in, a cultural, recreational, religious or sporting activity, or in relation to private tutoring,

a service provided at exempt premises, but only if the service is established, registered or licensed as part of the institution operating on those premises. Exempt premises include private hospitals, day procedure centres, public and private hospitals.

Informal child care generally involves care provided by parents, friends, grandparents or other relatives or neighbours. Informal care can be paid or unpaid care. Informal care is not regulated by the Act or Regulation.

2.2 Role of government in delivering child care services

The legislative and funding framework for the provision of child care in Australia involves the three tiers of government.

2.2.1 Commonwealth

The Commonwealth Government’s roles and responsibilities in relation to child care services include:

assisting families to participate in the social and economic life of the community by providing financial support to families, principally through payment of the Child Care Benefit (CCB). The CCB is available to families who use ‘approved child care services’; these are generally all of the formal care types identified in Section 2.1, except pre-schools and some occasional care services;

administering a planning system to allocate childcare places to those areas that need more places, in conjunction with other levels of government (there is now no Commonwealth Government limit on the allocation of centre-based long day care places);

providing information and advice to parents and providers about the availability of services;

helping to enhance the quality of childcare by funding the National Childcare Accreditation Council (NCAC) to administer quality assurance systems for children’s services providers; and

providing operational and capital funding to some providers.1

1 Australian Government Productivity Commission Report on Government Services 2006

Page 6


2.2.2 State

The NSW Government’s roles and responsibilities include:

providing some operational funding to non-government children’s services providers;

provision of operational funding to pre-schools and providing fee relief for families using pre-schools;

licensing and setting standards for certain children’s services, as discussed in Section 2.1;

monitoring and resourcing licensed and/or funded children’s services providers; and

providing information and advice to parents and others about operating standards and the availability of services.

The NSW Department of Community Services (DoCS):

has responsibility for the safety, welfare and well-being of children in NSW;

is the principal regulator for most formal children’s services. Within DoCS, the Office of Child Care (OCC) provides the framework for regulation, licensing, policy advice and funding of children’s services; and

provides funding to pre-schools and those occasional care services that do not receive Commonwealth funds. Pre-schools and State funded occasional care services do not receive CCB.

2.2.3 Local

Local councils role in the delivery of child care services includes the issuing of development consents and construction certificates for developments.

Councils may also be a provider of children’s services, in providing land and buildings for a community-based operator, or in providing the care, or both. Parramatta City Council currently owns and manages five long day care centres, leases two child care centres buildings to a community provider (the NSW Kindergarten Union) for the provision of pre-school services, and leases an occasional care centre in the Westfield complex in the Parramatta CBD.

2.3 Why is child care important?

Child care services contribute to the social and economic wellbeing of society and are important for a number of reasons:

They provide support to families with modern lifestyles. Major shifts in society over the last thirty years – including the rise in women’s participation in the workforce, and the shift toward part time and casual work - has been accompanied by growth in the provision of formal child care.

They contribute to and facilitate employment and lifestyle opportunities. Access to good quality affordable child care is critical to facilitate workforce participation. Returning to work after the birth of a child is often the only alternative for many families as they

Page 7


require two incomes to survive financially. In 2004, 90 percent of children’s hours in long day care centres were for work-related care, up from 88 percent in 2002.

They contribute to community well being. Child care services are a common source of support for families. They may facilitate local parent support networks and have the potential to act as a critical contact point, linking parents to family and community support services and information. They extend the community networks that nurture children and strengthen families through support rather than intervention (Queensland Child Care Forum 2005: 13).

They make an important contribution to children’s development. A person’s early years are critical in optimising life long health and learning success. Quality child care services play a key role in providing young children with a good start in life (Queensland Child Care Forum 2005: 13). Seventy five percent of a child’s brain develops during the first five years of their life, and half of all the intellectual and developmental potential of a child is established by age four. Therefore, early childhood education and care programs are also valuable to children contributing to:

children’s cognitive, social, emotional and physical development;

assisting with school readiness;

parent support;

early identification of children at risk;

effective parenting;

healthy child development; strong communities; and

social cohesion.

2.4 Designing for quality child care

In determining the merits of development proposals for child care centres, councils most often focus on the environmental impacts of the development upon neighbours. This is often because of the public interest generated in the proposals, expressed in the number of representations made to the council by surrounding residents. There is thus pressure for the Council to emphasise protection of residential amenity as the primary focus of its land use control endeavours.

The perception that the standards of child care provision for the users – that is, the children in care – are the responsibility of others (that is, DoCS) can reinforce the view that the council’s primary concern is impact on neighbours. Aspects of quality care and superior design can take a back seat in the consideration of development applications.

2 Commonwealth Child Care Census 2006

Page 8


Source: http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/documents/childcare_flowchart_new.pdf, accessed 16 November 2006

Figure 2.1: Process to secure a license to establish a new children’s service

Page 9

http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/documents/childcare_flowchart_new.pdf


However, the onus for centre design quality is being shifted from DoCS to the child care centre applicant and architect/design professional. While all prospective children’s services must meet the physical building requirements included in the 2004 Regulation, DoCS only considers proposals for licenses once a development consent has been issued by a local council, as shown by the flow chart in Figure 2.1. The DoCS website provides only cursory guidance on what sites may be suitable for a children’s services and implores prospective licensees to check local council policies for local requirements. The website states that it’s staff will not conduct inspections of prospective children’s services sites or give advice on their suitability.

The license determination process established by the Regulation means that councils need to understand design issues and negotiate these with developers at the earliest stages of a proposal if they and their communities expect to see best practice in the layout and siting of new child care centres.

While design and layout is only one factor contributing to the standard of children’s services, it is reasonable to state that poorly designed centres can lead to reduced standards of child care whereas centres of excellence will contribute to healthy, stimulated children in care.

In terms of council’s consideration of a child care centre proposal, centre design issues should therefore be treated equally with neighbourhood amenity issues.

The most current best practice guidance document on centre design is the document Best Practice Guidelines in Early Childhood Physical Environments prepared by Prue Walsh and DoCS in 1997. The DoCS website refers to this document as one that all prospective licensees should understand at the very outset of the license application process (http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/html/comm_partners/child_care_kit/preparation/want_open.htm, accessed 16 November 2006)

The guidelines aim to promote quality environments in early childhood centres by ensuring that site selection, building and playground design, combined with fittings, furnishings and equipment for centres and playgrounds is based on an assessment of children’s developing needs.

Understanding of children’s needs is the focus of quality design:

The environment that stimulates growth and development through play also helps extend and promote the adaptability and creativity of the child. These are the qualities that allow people to adjust to both positive and negative life experiences, when they grow older.

Early childhood settings where the buildings are light and attractive and the playgrounds large and dominated by plants are, by their very form, inviting and stimulating. These settings invite positive, joyous experiences in day-to-day living and learning. (Walsh P and NSW Department of Community Services, 1997a, p.9)

…A bleak sterile building, cramped internal spaces and a restricted playground is boring, and can be threatening to a young child. Poor siting and design of the building and playground inhibits, curtails and restricts a young child.

Some designs that are developed only from adult perspectives may be attractive but fail as effective settings for children and staff because they are not based on a

Page 10

http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/html/comm_partners/child_care_kit/preparation/want_open.htm

http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/html/comm_partners/child_care_kit/preparation/want_open.htm


careful assessment and understanding of user needs.(Walsh P and NSW Department of Community Services, 1997a, p.10)

The best practice guidelines provide a range of planning considerations, a process to achieve best practice, and a planning and design brief that contains specific criteria for all building and outdoor elements of a centre-based children’s service. Numeric standards identified by these and other guidelines are discussed in Section 4.7.2.

This study recommends that Council embrace best practice design criteria and integrate these requirements into its development control provisions as a means of both improving the quality of care and in safeguarding neighbourhood amenity.

2.5 Development feasibility issues

2.5.1 Minimum centre size

Centre-based children’s services, such as long day care centres are increasingly being provider by private or for-profit providers. The economic feasibility of delivering children’s services, and the effect of legislation and planning provisions on feasibility, are thus major considerations for many children’s services providers.

Council’s brief for this study requires the consultants to consider the opportunities for imposing a limit on the size or number of places within any individual child care centre.

For Council to establish limits to the size of child care centres, it should first be cognisant of the effect such limits will have on both viability and quality of services.

This goes to the heart of the planning balance earlier described: Council encouraging sufficient opportunities for new and enlarged centres without unreasonably compromising the amenity of residential neighbourhoods.

To fully understand minimum viable size for contemporary child care facilities, a model would need to be compiled addressing at least the following factors:

cost of land;

construction costs;

anticipated rental return;

proposed hours of operation;

staff salary costs;

insurance and other overheads; and

age break-up of child care places (as the younger the children, the higher the staff:child ratio and other space requirements, and therefore the higher the costs).

In a diverse urban place such as Parramatta, the model would also need to be sensitive to the location of the proposed developments. That is, the costs associated with establishing and operating a centre in, say, South Granville would likely be quite different to a centre in Parramatta CBD.

Page 11


The brief for this study did not extend to preparing such a model. The following comments are derived from recent studies and inquiries in relation to viability.

In a recent wide ranging investigation into planning for child care centres in Hornsby LGA (Newplan and Families at Work 2006) it was revealed that:

Staffing costs is probably the key issue driving the lack of places for children under 2 years of age in most locations. Caring for 0-2 year olds requires a ratio of 1 adult for every 5 babies, double that required for 3-5 year olds. The cost of providing this care can discourage private operators from including more than a few baby places.

The largest expense for child care provision relates to salaries and wages and associated costs, with child care providers spending between 65 and 85 percent of expenditure on staffing and related costs.

Centre size and staffing levels not only affect costs but also potentially the quality of care. Under the 2004 Regulation, all services over 30 places require at least one early childhood teacher (ECT). An ECT is the most expensive staff member and many services, non-profit and private, operate at levels just below the requirement for the next ECT. This maximises child places and creates some staffing efficiencies.

A rule of thumb indicates that around a 50-place centre is the baseline level required to operate a viable service. Fifty places would require two ECT, but the additional ten children would more than cover the second ECT salary. This number would vary upwards if there were large numbers of babies or the centre’s hours of operation were more than 10 hours a day.

The NSW Kindergarten Union has advised the authors that, because of the high cost of meeting the 2004 Regulation building requirements for new child care centres and staff to child ratios, for a new child care centre to be viable it needs to be at a minimum a 40 place centre.

The City of Sydney, in its development control plan regulating child care centre proposals, identifies that a centre needs to have a minimum of 30 places to be viable. No corroborating research is included in the plan to substantiate this figure.

Based on above, there are many factors affecting the viability of providing centre-based children’s services. Estimates of the minimum number of child care places required to make a centre financially sustainable vary. A financial model that considered the differing land economies in the Parramatta LGA would be required to determine a minimum viable centre size.

2.5.2 Viability of workplace-based services

The Commonwealth Government’s taxation system (particularly Fringe Benefits Tax or FBT) makes it difficult for small and medium sized employers to provide child care directly for their employees.

Fringe benefits are staff benefits, other than salary or wages or similar payments that are provided to staff. Such benefits include, among other things, the provision of services and the use of property.

Child care facilities provided by private sector employers for their employees on their business premises are FBT exempt under the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986

Page 12


(Cwlth). Exemption will also apply if the centre is located away from the main place of business, providing the employer actually own or leases the centre and maintains control over the centre operations.

Exemption in any particular case is not automatic, and the Australian Taxation Office examines each case on its own merits. This process is complex and time consuming and rulings made for one centre cannot automatically be assumed to apply to any other centre.

It has been estimated that the demand for work based child care would equate to about 1 child care place for every 50 employees (Newplan and Families at Work 2006). Based on a viable centre having at least 40 places, an employer (or joint venture of several employers) would need to have a workforce of around 2,000 in order for workplace provision of child care to be viable.

This has implications should Council want to adopt a general policy of encouraging child care centres being located mainly in the City’s major business and employment centres. Given the constraints noted above, if all but the every largest employers could not directly provide viable children’s services in these areas then it would be left generally to private child care providers to provide services in employment centres. Establishing centres in employment centres generally carry greater constraints including difficulty in obtaining suitable sites and higher rents/land costs.

2.6 Summary

Formal child care services (including long day care centres and pre-schools) are regulated in NSW through the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 and the Children’s Services Regulation 2004. All tiers of government in Australia have roles and responsibilities for the delivery of child care.

In NSW, DoCS license all formal children’s services while the role of local councils includes the issuing of development consents and construction certificates for developments and may include provision of the care itself. Council currently owns and manages five long day care centres, and leases two child care centres buildings to a community provider for the provision of pre-school services.

Child care services contribute to the social and economic wellbeing of society and are important for a number of reasons:

they provide support to families with modern lifestyles;

they contribute to and facilitate employment and lifestyle opportunities;

they contribute to community well being; and

they make an important contribution to children’s development.

Design and layout is an important factor contributing to the standard of any children’s service. The 2004 Regulation and DoCS licensing arrangements places the onus for quality child care centre design on the applicant and architect/design professional. While all prospective children’s services must meet the physical building requirements included in the 2004 Regulation, DoCS only considers proposals for licenses once a development consent has been issued by a local council. This means that development consent authorities (usually councils) need to understand design issues and negotiate these with

Page 13


developers at the earliest stages of a proposal if they and their communities expect to see best practice in the layout and siting of new child care centres.

There are many factors affecting the viability of providing centre-based children’s services. Estimates of the minimum number of child care places required to make a centre financially sustainable vary. A financial model that considered the differing land economies in the Parramatta LGA would be required to determine a minimum viable centre size relevant to the local area. The taxation system (particularly Fringe Benefits Tax or FBT) makes it difficult for small and medium sized employers to provide child care directly for their employees. This means that any policy that sought to focus child care centres only in workplaces is not likely to be sustainable.

Page 14


3. Child care in Parramatta

3.1 Supply and location of child care services

There are over 60 licensed child care services in the Parramatta LGA. These services comprise:

long day care – 50 services;

pre-schools/kindergartens – 11 services;

occasional care – 1 service; and

family day care – 4 schemes.

The 65 services provide a maximum of 2,643 child care places. These services can provide up to:

510 places for children aged under 2 years, and

2,133 places for children aged 2 to 5 years.

Only 19 percent of all child care places in Parramatta are provided for children aged under 2 years, despite this type of care representing the highest need in the LGA.

Council in centres it operates currently provides less than 8 percent of the total number of licensed places in the LGA (or 194 places).

Table 3.1 below provides a summary of child care centres by ward. This table does not include Family Day Care places.

Table 3.1: Child care centres by ward

Ward No. of centres No. of places

Total under 2 years 2 to 5 years

Arthur Phillip Ward 13 564 135 429

Caroline Chisholm Ward

5 185 18 167

Lachlan Macquarie Ward

16 535 83 452

Elizabeth Macarthur Ward

19 782 145 637

Woodville Ward 9 287 13 274

Total 62 2,353 394 1,959 Source: Parramatta City Council

The majority of these child care centres are located in suburban residential neighbourhoods, with only one centre located in the Parramatta CBD.

A list of the LGA’s 62 licensed child care centres (that is, all services except Family Day Care), together with maps showing the location of the centres, is provided in Appendix A.

Page 15


3.2 Demand for child care services

3.2.1 Census indicators

The following data is drawn from the Census of Population and Housing published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The population of the Parramatta LGA increased from 139,157 in 1996 to 147,880 in 2001 - an increase of 6 percent.

However the number of children of child care age (0 to 5 years) living on the LGA slightly declined over the same period - 11,891 children in 1996 vis-à-vis 11,720 in 20013. Table 3.2 shows the breakdown of children aged under 2 years and 2-5 years in both 1996 and 2001.

Table 3.2: Children aged 0-5 years 1996 to 2001

Age group 1996 persons 2001 persons

Under 2 years 4,047 3,897

2-5 years 7,844 7,823

Total 0-5 years 11,891 11,720 Source: ABS 2001 Census of Population and Housing

The total number of children by suburb aged under 2 years and 2-5 years is shown in the population data included in Appendix B. The suburbs showing the highest increase in children aged 0 to 5 years between 1996 and 2001 are:

North Parramatta – 498 to 555 (+2.2 percent)

South Granville – 379 to 443 (+3.2 percent)

Westmead – 457 to 518 (+2.5 percent)

Winston Hills – 617 to 689 (+2.2 percent)

Families with children

The total families with at least one child aged 0 to 5 years (of child care age) increased slightly from 8,233 in 1996 to 8,249 in 2001.

Families where both parents work is an indicator of a need for child care, whether formal or informal. In 1996, 2,903 families (or 35 percent of all families) with at least one child aged 0 to 5, had both parents working. This number increased slightly to 2,985 families (or 36 percent of all families) in 2001.

The number of new families with children aged 0 to 1 only increased slightly between 1996 (1,426 families) and 2001 (1,558 families). This shows an increasing number of young families in the area and suggests an increased need for child care places for children aged under 2 years. However, the percentage of these families where both parents worked decreased slightly from 41 percent (or 586 families) in 1996 to 37 percent (or 575 families) in 2001. This slight decrease in families with both parents working could be

3 ABS 2001 Census of Population and Housing

Page 16


attributed to an inability of parents to access long day care for children under 2 years of age.

Workers

There are about 85,000 jobs currently provided in Parramatta LGA. Eighty-one percent (or 69,247) of these people commute into Parramatta each day to work. About 28 percent of those who work in Parramatta commute to the area from areas east of the LGA. The largest proportion of those who work in Parramatta come from other areas of Greater Western Sydney, particularly Blacktown, Holroyd and Penrith. The balance of workers are residents of the Parramatta LGA4.

Many of the out-of-area workers would require access to child care for their children, placing greater pressure on the provision of child care, particularly for places for children aged under 2 years.

Research has identified that many parents of children that are aged under 2 years prefer the child care service to be located close to their place of work5.

3.2.2 Demand for care for children under 2 years and 3-5 years

There has been a steady increase in demand for child care across Australia in recent years.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2005) has identified that:

in 2005 there was a shortage of long day care places for 43,300 children, and that an extra 37,600 children needed access to occasional care and 29,100 needed access to family day care;

in 2003, lack of places prevented 61,000 children from attending child care, cost stopped 30,000 and 22,000 could not access a place because there were none in the area;

in 2002:

almost half of Australia’s 3.1 million children aged under 12 years used some form of child care;

two-thirds of the youngest children, aged less than 1 year, did not use child care. Of those who did use care, most used only informal care provided by grandparents;

use of child care increases with the age of the child and peaks among 4 year olds, 83 percent of whom were in formal care (including pre-school) in 2002 – meaning that most children have experienced some type of formal care before beginning school.

The demand is influenced not only by the number and age of children in the population, but also on trends in social factors such as family structure, employment patterns, and population mobility.

According to the 2006 Census of Child Care Services6, in NSW most families use child care for work related purposes, as shown in Table 3.4.

4 Parramatta City Community Profile, Parramatta City Council 5 Research completed for the City of Sydney Child Care Needs Study identified that 42% of parents would prefer a childcare centre close to their place of work for their babies.

Page 17


Table 3.4: Reasons why families use child care in NSW

Family type Proportion of families listing this issue (%)

Sole parent/guardian work related 13

Both parents/guardians work related 63

Sole parent/guardian non-work related 3

2 parents/guardians, 1 or both non-work related 11 Source: 2006 Census of Child Care Services

Although the total number of children aged 0-5 years has remained relatively stable in the Parramatta area over the last decade or so, a telephone survey of all child care services in the Parramatta LGA, identified that 75 percent of all centres currently had no vacancies7. Those centres with vacancies mostly had places for children aged 2-5 years, and only for one or two days of the week. Some centres had waiting lists of between 80 and 170 children.

There are currently no vacancies in existing centres for babies aged under 2 years except in one new centre that opened in the past few months. These places are expected to be filled. Interviews with centre managers identified that the highest demand from families is for children aged under 2 years.

Written surveys conducted with child care centres owned and operated by Parramatta City Council identified that while most services were at capacity:

there has been a decline in the number of children on the 3-5 year waiting list over the past few years;

the demand for places for children aged under 2 is very high; and

new developments are generating demand for places for under 2 year olds. For example, a large town house complex in Dundas built next door to the Dundas child care centre has impacted on supply.

Across the Parramatta LGA, the majority of places for long day care are provided by private providers as detailed in Table 3.5.

6 Australian Government, Department of Family and Community Services, 2004, p.33 7 Telephone surveys with all childcare centres in the Parramatta LGA were conducted between 25 and 29 September 2006.

Page 18


Table 3.5: Provider type

Total long day care centres

Total places for children 0 to 5 years

Places for children

aged 2 to 5 years

Places for children

aged under 2 years

% total places

provided for children under 2 years

Community-based

5 213 173 30 14

Council 5 194 123 71 36

Private 45 1,665 1,372 293 17 Source: Parramatta City Council and Cred Community Planning

Council is providing a much higher percentage of places for under 2 year olds in its centres (36 percent) than other providers. Community and private providers, due to the higher staff and other costs of providing care for children aged under 2 years, are providing 14 percent and 17 percent, respectively, of their places for children aged under 2 years.

Table 3.6 below provides a suburb-by-suburb assessment of child care places against total numbers of children aged 0-5.

Table 3.6: No. of children and child care places by suburb

Suburb No. of centres

Total child care

places

Resident children

aged 0 to 5 years (2001)

Places for children

aged under 2 years

Resident children

aged under 2 years (2001)

Baulkham Hills 0 0 123 0 42

Carlingford 3 96 281 15 91

Dundas (inc. Telopea) 3 96 1,395 14 443

Epping 3 113 387 18 132

Ermington 9 298 746 50 230

Granville 11 447 1,909 47 574

Guildford & Merrylands 4 126 667 8 221

Harris Park 2 61 590 16 188

Melrose Park 0 0 22 0 10

Northmead 1 45 378 20 123

North Parramatta 2 99 555 30 202

Oatlands 0 0 167 0 49

Old Toongabbie 1 30 425 0 151

Parramatta 7 252 1,149 48 393

Pendle Hill 0 0 332 0 107

Rosehill 2 91 18 20 6

Rydalmere 3 104 99 15 26

South Granville 0 0 443 0 138

Page 19


Suburb No. of centres

Total child care

places

Resident children

aged 0 to 5 years (2001)

Places for children

aged under 2 years

Resident children

aged under 2 years (2001)

Toongabbie 4 155 548 18 183

Wentworthville 6 285 279 65 105

Westmead 1 55 518 10 246

Winston Hills 0 0 689 0 237

Total 2,353 11,720 394 3,897 Source: Cred Community Planning

Suburbs with the greatest shortage of places for children aged 0 to 5 years are as follows:

Dundas (including Telopea) (96 places for 1,395 children)

Oatlands (0 places for 167 children)

South Granville (0 places for 443 children)

Winston Hills (0 places for 689 children)

Having regard to the high worker and increasing high density resident populations of the Parramatta CBD there also would appear to be a significant under-provision of long day care places in this location.

The data demonstrates that across all suburbs in the LGA there is a shortage of places for children aged under 2 years. In this category, existing centres are only providing a total number of places equivalent to 10 percent of the total number of children aged under 2 years and living in the LGA.

3.3 Future demand for child care

In May 2006, Council commissioned a Housing Market Study8. This study analysed population projections for the Parramatta LGA from a number of sources including the Department of Planning and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Data prepared for the study included the following results:

projections of the future total population of Parramatta LGA vary according to different published sources. The Study concludes that population levels in 2026 could range between 160,000 and 170,000 (up from 148,000 in 2001);

the ABS9 predicts that the population in the 0-4 year age group is projected to decrease from 10,028 in 2002 to 9,353 in 2022 - a decrease of 675 (or 6.7 percent). By 2031, the total number of 0-4 year olds would start to increase again; and

there will be proportionately more persons aged 0-14 years and 20-35 years in 2031 than in 2022 and proportionately fewer aged persons10.

8 Parramatta City Council Housing Market Study, Cardew Consulting, 2006 9 Customised Population Projections Consultancy for Cardew Consulting by ABS 5 year age groups and sex 10 Customised Population Projections Consultancy for Cardew Consulting by ABS 5 year age groups and sex

Page 20


Council will need to continue to plan for child care, where there will be a continued demand, because growth will occur in the 20-35 years age group and their children.

Notwithstanding that the number of young children living in the LGA will continue to stabilise and, according to the projections, even slightly decline in the medium term, demand for more child care places is expected to remain strong for the foreseeable future, based on the following:

The existing unquantifiable lag in service provision. Information on waiting lists and anecdotal evidence provided by Council’s children’s services staff point to a situation where insufficient child care places are currently available in the LGA. This includes the situations where parents with children who, for whatever reason, would like to utilise more care than they currently use but are unable to, and parents who currently use informal care and would prefer, but for whatever reason cannot access, formal care.

The LGA is not a closed system. Parents from outside the LGA access Parramatta services (particularly those who work in Parramatta CBD) and parents within the LGA access other LGA services.

Evolving government policy (particularly any enhancement of the CCB for parents and therefore operators) may result in many more places being created to meet the unmet demand.

High workplace participation rates for women are expected to be maintained.

3.4 Summary and implications for land use planning

The population of children aged 0 to 5 years in Parramatta has decreased slightly in recent years and is forecast to continue to decrease slightly over the next 10 to 20 years.

Notwithstanding, the demand for child care, particularly for children aged under 2 years, will continue.

This is due to a number of factors including:

existing unmet demand for child care services (at least demand for places for children aged under 2 years);

continuing high rates of workforce participation for women;

comparatively high living costs which demand that both parents work;

the need for children to attend pre-schools and long day care for socialisation and development;

forecast higher numbers of young couples moving into the area, many with young children; and

forecast higher numbers of workers in the Parramatta LGA, some with young children.

Land use planning implications to be drawn from the above analysis of child care provision in Parramatta include the following:

Existing child care services are generally well spread through the LGA, although there are few services located within the major employment and business centres (most notably Parramatta CBD). The data on current location of services together with

Page 21


anecdotal evidence that users of services come from many locations inside and outside the LGA suggest that the Council’s land use planning provisions for child care should not necessarily focus on attracting child care centres to some neighbourhoods and not others.

Not all of the demand for child care centre places in the LGA – particularly for families with children aged under 2 years – is currently being met. Council’s land use planning policies can be adjusted, where appropriate, to actively support provision of more of these types of places in new and enlarged centres.

Child care services in Parramatta LGA attract users from outside the LGA, particularly those who work in or near Parramatta and find having a service near to work convenient. Council’s current and evolving land use planning policy is favoring greater concentration of living and working opportunities in the LGA’s centres. Implications of centres-based location policy for new child care centres are discussed in Section 5.1.3.

Page 22


4. Child care centre planning issues

4.1 Statutory requirements

4.1.1 Overview

The planning of child care centres in Parramatta is primarily controlled through the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 (the LEP or LEP 2001) and Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 - Parramatta. Council’s Development Control Plan 2005 contains only limited guidance on the design of child care centres.

Child care centres are licensed by the NSW Department of Community Services (DoCS) under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 and the Children’s Services Regulation 2004 (the 2004 Regulation). These statutes cover all ‘children’s services’ in NSW.

The Building Code of Australia and a range of Australian Standards also apply to the construction of child care centres.

4.1.2 Children’s Services Regulation 2004

The Regulation addresses:

licensing procedures;

facilities and equipment requirements;

staffing requirements;

child numbers including group sizes and ratios;

operational requirements; and

administrative requirements.

The Regulation is administered by the NSW Department of Community Services (DoCS) through the Office of Child Care. At a local level the regulations are monitored by a DoCS Children’s Services Adviser (CSA).

The key part of the Regulation in terms of planning and building requirements for children’s services is Part 3 – Facilities and Equipment Requirements. Matters addressed in this section include:

facilities and equipment

space

laundry

craft preparation facilities

food preparation facilities

toilets and washing facilities

Page 23


nappy change facilities

sleeping facilities

storage facilities

swimming pools

telephone

development and play equipment

first aid kits

fire safety equipment

ventilation, lighting and heating

hot water

fencing

glass

cleanliness, maintenance and repairs

safe environment (based on the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000)

The Regulation provides a minimum base line of care for children. Professional organisations such as Early Childhood Australia (ECA) advocate for operating guidelines with a greater emphasis on quality outcomes for children in care, including more physical space per child and better staff to child ratios (refer Section 4.2.7).

In NSW, minimum space requirements are prescribed for long day care centres and pre-schools only. Other children’s services do not have specific space requirements.

The centre-based children’s service space requirements are 3.25 square metres of indoor unencumbered space per place and 7 square metres of outdoor unencumbered space per place. Child care centres have to additionally provide for child sleeping areas such as cot rooms, child and adult toilets, nappy change areas, staff rooms, administrative offices, kitchen, storage, entrance and access areas.

The Regulation also contains minimum staff to child ratios and these vary by age group. The ratios are:

Children aged under 2 years 1:5

Children aged 2 years 1:8

Children aged 3-6 years 1:10

The staff:child ratios also need to consider adequate supervision – that is the ability of adults to safely supervise children in all areas of the child care facility including indoor and outdoor play, cot rooms and nappy change areas. There are maximum group size requirements that also affect staffing and space:

Children aged under 2 years not more than 10 children in a group

Children aged 2 years not more than 16 children in a group

Page 24


Children aged 3-6 years not more than 20 children in a group

Centre based child care services must not have more than 90 places, of which not more than 30 places may be available for 0-2 year olds and not more than 60 places may be available for children aged 3 or more years.

Outdoor play spaces must be adequately shaded according to NSW Cancer Council guidelines.

Centre based child care services with more than 30 places must also employ at least 1 qualified teacher at the following rates:

Centre with 30-39 places 1 teacher

Centre with 40-59 places 2 teachers

Centre with 60-79 places 3 teachers

Centre with >80 places 4 teachers

For home based care, the number of children (including children related to the licensee) that can be cared for at any one time must not exceed 7 children under the age of 12 years, including no more than 5 who do not ordinarily attend school.

4.1.3 What the Regulation does not address?

The 2004 Regulation heavily focuses on child care centre internal space and organisation matters. The following matters are not specifically addressed and represent design elements that Council could choose to address in the drafting of development controls for child care centres:

Parking and access

External building appearance

Landscaping

Proximity to hazards

Outdoor play area design (apart from generic requirements for equipment and surfacing)

Transition areas (veranda or other interface) between indoor areas and play areas

Disability access

Privacy and noise

Fencing (apart from requirements relating to keeping children safe in the play area)

Page 25


4.2 Land use planning and development control issues associated with child care centres

4.2.1 Regional environmental plan, local environmental plan and development control plan

Development of most land in the Parramatta LGA is regulated under one or both of the following environmental planning instruments:

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta (or SREP 28); and

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 (or LEP 2001).

SREP 28 applies to all land situated in the ‘Parramatta Primary Centre’ – an area which generally includes the suburbs of Parramatta, Harris Park, Rosehill, Camellia, Rydalmere, North Parramatta and Westmead.

LEP 2001 generally applies to all of the land in the LGA that SREP 28 does not otherwise apply to.

The instruments, among other things, zone land for the purpose of regulating the location of different land uses.

Definitions

Under SREP 28 a ‘child care centre’ is defined as:

a building or place where a child care service (such as a service of the kind provided at a long day care centre, a purpose-designed child care centre, an occasional centre, an outside of school hours care centre, a pre-school centre or the like) is provided for the purpose of education, minding or caring for 6 or more children, but does not include overnight accommodation.

Under LEP 2001 a ‘centre based child care service’ is defined as:

a building or place (other than the home of the licensee of the service) where a child care service such as a service of the kind provided at a long day care centre, a purpose designed child care centre, an occasional centre, an outside of school hours care centre, a pre-school centre, or the like, that is provided for 6 or more children (not including any children who are related to the person providing the service) and which does not include overnight accommodation.

LEP 2001 also defines a ‘home based child care service’ as a ‘child care service that is provided at the home of the licensee of the service for the purpose of educating, minding or caring for (but without providing residential care for) not more than 7 children under the age of 12 years (including any children who are related to the person providing the service) at least 5 of whom have not started school, and that is required to be licensed under the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987’.

Page 26


Permissibility of centre-based child care services

Table 4.1 shows the permissibility of child care centres or centre based child care services in the various land use zones that are provided for under the relevant environmental planning instruments.

Generally, the instruments permit centre based child care services in all but the Environmental Protection and Residential 2E (or flood-affected residential) zones; most Transport zones; and the James Ruse Drive Mixed Use, Trade and Industry Support, Racecourse, Parramatta Stadium and Parramatta Road Industrial zones.

Table 4.1: Permissibility of child care centres

Land use zone Permissibility of child care centres or centre based child care services under relevant environmental planning instrument

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 - Parramatta

City Centre Precinct

City Core Permissible with development consent

Retail Core Permissible with development consent

City Edge Permissible with development consent

Automotive Business Permissible with development consent

Special Uses Only centres ancillary to the particular land use indicated by red lettering on the zoning map

Open Space Permissible with development consent

Transport Prohibited

Harris Park Precinct

Residential 2 (a) Permissible with development consent

Residential 2 (b) Permissible with development consent

Residential 2 (c) Permissible with development consent

Residential 2 (e) Prohibited

Business Permissible with development consent

Light Industrial Permissible with development consent

James Ruse Drive Mixed Use Prohibited

Special Uses Only centres ancillary to the particular land use indicated by red lettering on the zoning map


Private Open Space Permissible with development consent

Government Precinct

Regional Park Only where authorised by a plan of management prepared under the Parramatta Park Trust Act 2001

Parramatta Stadium Prohibited


North Parramatta Mixed Use Permissible with development consent


Page 27



Westmead Precinct No zonings apply

Rydalmere Precinct

Residential 2 (b) Permissible with development consent

Business and Transport Centre Permissible with development consent

Trade and Industry Support Prohibited

Technology and Enterprise Permissible with development consent

Special Uses Permissible with development consent


Environmental Protection Prohibited


Camellia Precinct

Business and Transport Centre Permissible with development consent

Regional Enterprise Permissible with development consent

James Ruse Drive Mixed Use Prohibited

Racecourse Prohibited



Environmental Protection Prohibited


Parramatta Road Industrial Prohibited

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 2A Residential Zone (Zone 2 (a)) Permissible with development consent

2B Residential Zone (Zone 2 (b)) Permissible with development consent

2C Residential Zone (Zone 2 (c)) Permissible with development consent

2D Residential Zone (Zone 2 (d)) Permissible with development consent

2E Residential Zone (Zone 2 (e)) Prohibited

3A Centre Business Zone (Zone 3 (a)) Permissible with development consent

3B Neighbourhood Business Zone (Zone 3 (b)) Permissible with development consent

4 Employment Zone (Zone 4) Centres which serve the needs of the workforce are permissible with development consent

5 Special Uses Zone (Zone 5) Permissible with development consent

6A Public Open Space Zone (Zone 6 (a)) Permissible with development consent

6B Private Open Space Zone (Zone 6 (b)) Permissible with development consent

7 Environment Protection (Bushland) Zone (Zone 7)

Prohibited

9A Open Space (Proposed) Zone (Zone 9 (a)) Permissible with development consent

9B Transport (Proposed) Zone (Zone 9 (b)) Only where centres are permissible with development consent on an adjoining zone

Page 28



9C Local Road (Proposed) Zone (Zone 9 (c)) Only where centres are permissible with development consent on an adjoining zone

9D Environment Protection (Proposed) (Zone 9 (d)) Prohibited

10 Mixed Use Zone (Zone 10) Permissible with development consent Source: Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta and Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

4.2.2 Implications of the Standard LEP

The Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order prescribes a standard form and content of a principal local environmental plan (the Standard Instrument—Principal Local Environmental Plan hereafter referred to in this study as the ‘Standard LEP’).

The Standard LEP is a ‘template’ which councils will use as the basis for preparing a new principal LEP for their local area within the next five years, using standard zones, definitions, clauses and format.

All draft principal LEPs are now to be prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Standard LEP before the Director-General of Planning will certify the draft plan for public exhibition or recommends a draft LEP for gazettal.

The implications of the Standard LEP for Council’s review of planning policies for child care centres are that any adjustment of Parramatta’s land use planning policy in relation to child care centres must be consistent with the Standard LEP.

In this regard, there are certain prescribed land use definitions in the Standard LEP and there are zones in the Standard LEP in which certain land uses are prescribed as ‘permissible with consent’, ‘permissible without consent’, or ‘prohibited’, and which Council cannot change.

Standard LEP Dictionary definitions that would cover the likely range of child care facilities offered in Parramatta LGA are shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Standard LEP child care land use definitions

Land use included in the Standard LEP Dictionary

Definition

Child care centre a building or place used for the supervision and care of children which:

(a) may provide long day care, pre-school care, occasional child care or out-of-school-hours care, and

(b) does not provide overnight accommodation for children other than those related to the owner or operator,

but does not include:

(c) a family day care home or home-based child care home,

(d) an out-of-home care service provided by an agency or organisation accredited by the NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian,

(e) a baby-sitting, playgroup or child-minding service that is organised informally by the parents of the children concerned,

(f) a service provided for fewer than 5 children (disregarding any children

Page 29


Land use included in the Standard LEP Dictionary

Definition

who are related to the person providing the service) at the premises at which at least one of the children resides, being a service that is not advertised,

(g) a regular child-minding service that is provided in connection with a recreational or commercial facility (such as a gymnasium), by or on behalf of the person conducting the facility, to care for children while the children’s parents are using the facility,

(h) a service that is concerned primarily with the provision of:

(i) lessons or coaching in, or providing for participation in, a cultural, recreational, religious or sporting activity, or

(ii) private tutoring,

(i) a school, or

(j) a service provided at exempt premises (within the meaning of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998), such as hospitals, but only if the service is established, registered or licensed as part of the institution operating on those premises.

Home-based child care or family day care home

a dwelling used by a resident of the dwelling for the supervision and care of one or more children and which satisfies the following conditions:

(a) the service is appropriately licensed within the meaning of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, and

(b) the number of children (including children related to the carer or licensee) does not at any one time exceed 7 children under the age of 12 years, including no more than 5 who do not ordinarily attend school.

Source: Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The Standard LEP provides the following ‘minimum’ permissibility requirements in relation to these land uses, as shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Standard LEP child care land use permissibility

Land use Minimum requirements of the Standard LEP

Zones in which Council has discretion in deciding whether use is permissible or prohibited

Child care centre Permissible with consent in the RU5 Village, all Residential zones (except R2 Low Density Residential and R5 Large Lot Residential); all Business zones (except B6 Enterprise Corridor)

All Rural zones (except RU5 Village)

R2 Low Density Residential and R5 Large Lot Residential

B6 Enterprise Corridor

All Industrial zones

All Special Purpose zones

All Recreation zones

All Environment Protection zones

All Waterways zones

Home-based child care or family day care home

No minimum requirements All zones

Source: Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Page 30


Council is required to prepare a new local environmental plan for the LGA within the next five years. It is understood that such plan will not address the areas of the LGA which are affected by SREP 28.

Based on the current Standard LEP Council will be required to consider the following in the preparation of the local environmental plan for the City:

Whether to permit child care centres with consent in either the R2 or R5 zones (if either of the zones are to apply to land in the LGA)?

Whether to permit child care centres in the non residential zones, specifically the Industrial or B6 Enterprise Corridor zones in light of concerns of amenity impacts on children or the potential of child care centre uses discourage adjacent proposed industrial uses?

Appropriate consent arrangements for home-based care.

4.2.3 Parramatta Residential Development Strategy

As part of the development of a new comprehensive LEP that meets the Standard LEP requirements discussed in Section 4.2.2, Council is in the process of preparing and implementing a residential development strategy.

The Draft Residential Development Strategy 2006:

proposes a ‘concentrated growth’ model where the City’s centres will accommodate the lion share of growth;

promotes co-location and concentration of residential development with jobs and housing with better use of existing infrastructure and improved access;

(by focusing housing growth in these places) allows other residential areas (which are considered not to have potential for increased residential development) to either remain low density or be down-zoned as low density housing areas;

does not propose to increase residential development potential, but rather to redistribute this potential to more sensible and sustainable locations; and

will guide the definition and application of the Standard LEP zones.

The Strategy focuses on the future location of residential uses rather than the future location of non-residential uses. The Strategy does not deal specifically with the issue of planning for low scale non residential uses (such as child care centres) in residential areas.

Notwithstanding, the Strategy cites the benefits of co-locating residential growth and services in centres as including the following:

new residents will be close to transport, shops and facilities necessary for everyday urban life;

existing infrastructure and facilities will be more efficiently used;

civic and other improvements can be targeted in a concentrated rather than dispersed manner, creating more sustainable and liveable communities; and

the character of low density neighbourhoods outside the growth areas can be maintained.

Page 31


A policy of accommodating key community services such as child care centres only in the nominated Strategy centres (and prohibiting them outside of Strategy centres) would be consistent with these objectives.

However, the side effects of such a policy could include the following:

higher density housing development sites in Strategy centres could be sterilised by them being occupied by child care centre uses; and

site availability for future child care centres would become more constrained if they were only permitted to be located in the Strategy centres.

Moreover, a land use planning policy that continued to allow low scale non residential uses (such as child care centres) in residential areas would not be inconsistent with the Strategy. Growth in the use of child care throughout the City will not only be generated by residents of new dwellings in the centres but will also be generated by residents that occupy housing in existing neighbourhoods that are ‘regenerating’ (that is, neighbourhoods where older couples are being replaced by younger families).

Most of the Standard LEP Residential zones, when in place, as a minimum will permit child care centres with Council’s consent. Council can however decide to prohibit these uses in the R2 Low Density Residential zone (if that zone is intended to be included in the new local environmental plan for the City). Ultimately, Council will need to determine this issue. Such consideration should also address the permissibility of other non residential uses in the R2 zone and mixed use child care centre / residential developments (see below).

Based on reasons cited above, we consider that child care centres, located on appropriate sites and designed in accordance with relevant development standards (such as those in a development control plan), are not incompatible with low density residential environments and should be permitted with Council’s consent in all Residential zones.

Permissibility of mixed use developments

Currently, there is no provision for Council to allow child care centres that include dwellings in the same development where the development is situated on any Residential zoned land under LEP 2001. Such development is defined as ‘mixed use development’ which is prohibited development in these zones. Developments that incorporate both dwellings and child care centres are however permissible with Council’s consent on land zoned Residential under SREP 28.

The Standard LEP Dictionary includes the following definition for ‘mixed use development’:

mixed use development means a building or place comprising 2 or more different land uses.

Council will have the discretion of whether to allow mixed use development in Residential zones under the new local environmental plan.

It is understood that, at this stage, mixed use development is not intended to be permitted in some or all of the Residential zones under the new local environmental plan for the City.

It could however be desirable for the Council to have the flexibility of allowing such development in residential areas, such as:

Page 32


where the development incorporates a dwelling which is the home of the proprietor of the child care centre. This could assist in maximizing security of the facility and in maintaining the residential character of the area; and

where the child care centre is part of a larger ‘master planned’ or integrated housing development that has many dwellings at different densities and the inclusion of a child care facility in such a development may be consistent with the planning objectives for the site.

If the Council considers it appropriate to allow integrated residential / child care centre developments then it will need to ensure that appropriate provisions are included in the LEP to permit this form of development.

4.2.4 Review of development applications

Recent Parramatta applications

Newplan was provided with file material relating to development applications for child care centres that had been considered by Council in recent years. A list of the applications that were canvassed as part of this review is included in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Development applications reviewed

Address No. of child care places proposed or

approved

Site area of development

(m2)

Decision

101 Wigram Street, Harris Park 19 610 Approved

15 Station Street, Guildford 32 792 Approved

93 Gladstone Street, North Parramatta 56 944 Approved

3 Manuka Street, Constitution Hill 25 586 Approved

75 Sorrell Street, North Parramatta 56 952 Approved

1 Cliff Avenue, Winston Hills 32 1,299 Court appeal pending

9 Bundilla Avenue, Winston Hills 44 923 Court appeal pending

31-33 Iron Street, North Parramatta 60 1,415 Approved

51-55 Rawson Street, Guildford 36 1,027 Approved

182 Windsor Road, Northmead 70 2,052 Approved

1c Grand Avenue, Parramatta 78 4th floor of a commercial building

Approved

12 Salisbury Road, Guildford 32 929 Approved

73 Carlingford Road, Epping Not shown on material provided

1,189 Refused

234 Windsor Road, Northmead 79 Not shown on material provided

Approved by the Court

92 Bettington Road, Oatlands 75 971 Refused, appeal dismissed by the

Court Source: Parramatta City Council files

Page 33


Some of the issues that emerged from the review included the following:

Child care centre proposals have been assessed against DCP 2001 or DCP 2005 – both documents that primarily focus on planning for residential development. It was found that most if not all of the proposals the subject of the application review were able to comply with the key standards of these documents – that is, in terms of building height, setbacks, floor space ratio.

Some applications recommended for approval by Council officers were subsequently refused by the Council. Some of the reasons for refusal subsequently determined by Council included unreasonable impacts on traffic and amenity when the technical advice presented did not bear this out.

There appeared to be no obvious relationship between the size of the proposal (no. of places), the degree of community objection, or the determination issued by Council. There was however a correlation between the number of objections and whether the proposal was located in a low density residential area – that is, proposals in locations where dwelling houses predominate generally attracted the most objections (although centres in some dwelling house neighbourhoods elicited much more response than centres in other neighbourhoods).

Neighbours objecting to proposals were concerned with a range of matters. Some of the more frequently suggested grounds for objection included concerns relating to:

noise impacts on neighbours (children playing outside, vehicles coming and going, etc.);

traffic safety and car parking impacts;

hours of operation of the child care centre (including extent of after-hours use);

air and noise pollution impacts on children from busy roads; and

negative impacts on property values.

Inconsistent application of car parking standards for similar child care centre proposals. The inconsistency arises as a result of the different parking requirements between SREP 28 (which applies to most land in the Parramatta Primary Centre) and LEP 2001 (which applies to other land in the Parramatta LGA). SREP 28 sets a maximum parking rate of 1 space for every 4 child care places while LEP 2001 establishes this standards as a minimum requirement. An example was cited of parking for two centres: one (under LEP 2001) where the number of child care places was reduced from 39 to 32 places because the minimum parking requirements could not be met even though the proposed centre was to be within 110 metres of a railway station; and the other (under SREP 28) which was a similar sized centre and which was approved with only the need for one parking space, even though it was adjacent to an existing child care centre and was relatively remote from major public transport.

In cases where less than the SREP 28 maximum parking was to be provided, concerns were raised by objectors that centre staff would utilise most of the parking provided and leaving few spaces for clients of the centre. Conditions limiting staff use of spaces were subsequently imposed as conditions of consent.

Availability of on-street parking and light traffic/adequate pedestrian safety conditions outside child care centre proposals was consistently referred to as a relevant planning consideration in officer’s planning assessments of applications. In other words, the objective of providing a minimum amount of parking on site needs to be tempered with

Page 34


the case-by-case ability for the street environment to assist in meeting parking needs of the development.

Several of the applications involved child care centre proposals fronting or requiring access to a main or arterial road. While notionally the higher traffic flows associated with these locations would appear to be generally incompatible with a child care centre, the safety issues can be mitigated where the development is to be situated on a large site (to provide the minimum parking requirement on site) with a generous frontage (to allow wider driveways and improved sight distances for safety). Availability of a larger site also allows more flexibility in the location and size of outdoor play areas and associated structures (shade sails etc.) vis-à-vis a more typical allotment size, allowing these areas to be located further way from adjacent dwellings. Also, larger sites would also be capable of accommodating more child care places and could therefore absorb more of the demand (including demand for children aged under 2 years) than otherwise locating more smaller sized centres in quieter streets.

For the applications involving centres with main road access, the Roads and Traffic Authority has generally supported the proposals provided adequate attention has been given to traffic management (for example, provision of a median, driveways of sufficient width). With some applications, Councillors and/or objectors sought the Authority’s imprimatur for the development to provide a ‘slip lane’ for vehicle access but (in the applications reviewed) this was not supported by the Authority.

In some applications, Councillors and community objectors raised concerns that the proposal was not addressing areas of child care need (that is, care for 0-2 year olds) or that in the local area there was ample provision of child care services. The view was expressed in some applications that it was unreasonable for child care centres to be ‘clustered’ in residential areas and some form of separation control was needed. Others suggested that child care centres were a commercial use and should not be located in residential areas. Clustering of centres was reported by Council officers as ‘not a town planning consideration’ in some application assessments.

For applications the subject of appeals in the Land and Environment Court, a common reason for refusal of the child care centre proposal was that it did not meet the objective(s) of the Residential 2(a) zone under LEP 2001.

File material reviewed for the Bundilla Avenue proposal included a range of shortcomings of the centre design, many of which may be relevant to child care centre proposals generally. They included:

inadequate solar access to play areas;

excessive overshadowing of adjoining properties;

over-reliance on mechanical ventilation for the amenity of children and staff;

excessive noise from outdoor play areas;

inadequate pedestrian access between basement parking area and centre above;

non-compliance with Australian Standard for parking and access;

adverse impact of 1.8 metre high fencing on the streetscape presentation; and

non-compliance with the 2004 Regulation standards.

Page 35


Land and Environment Court judgments

A review of judgments handed down by the NSW Land and Environment Court in relation to child care centre applications was carried out. The purpose of this review was to determine if there were any clear implications from decisions made by the Court that could affect Council’s planning policy in relation to child care centres.

A search of the Caselaw website (http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/caselaw /ll_caselaw.nsf/pages/cl_lec) for case judgments since 2000 yielded approximately 50 matches to the search for ‘child care centre’. However, only several of the cases/judgements addressed matters that could be considered to have relevance to the preparation of a child care centre planning policy.

In the following section we have highlighted the one case in the search that involved land in Parramatta, and two other cases where a key issue was the intensity of child care centre uses in residential areas.

Cases involving land in Parramatta LGA

Out of the applications listed in Table 4.4, only one related to a judgment that has been handed down by the Land and Environment Court of NSW.

The particular case was Bechara v Parramatta City Council [2006] NSWLEC 177 and involved the demolition of an existing dwelling and associated structures and the construction of a child care centre (two storey building) involving up to 75 child care places at 92 Bettington Road, Oatlands.

Key issues in this case were listed in the judgment as traffic, parking and access, streetscape character, solar access and noise. Need for the child care centre in the local area was an additional issue raised by resident objectors.

Responses to these issues included in the judgment delivered by Commissioner Brown are summarised below:

All but one of the proposed parking spaces were to be provided in stacked formation in a basement area. It was argued on behalf of the Council that the extent of stacked parking was too great having regard to the limited opportunity for on street parking in locality. The Commissioner did not accept the applicant’s argument that the stacked parking could be satisfactorily managed through conditions of consent as ‘it is likely that there will be times when the car park is at capacity and with no on street parking facilities, unacceptable and unsafe vehicle movements could easily occur’. While some employees could use the ‘rear’ stacked parking spaces, others would be arriving and departing with parents/carers cars. Essentially, in this case it was clear to the Court that there were too many stacked parking spaces to allow safe access to the child care centre.

The Commissioner was not convinced that the conditions designed to manage the stacked parking area that were proposed on behalf of the applicant could be reasonably imposed as conditions of consent, as ‘compliance with the conditions clearly relies on parties that cannot be controlled by applicant’.

The Commissioner was not convinced that adequate safety would be provided in the basement carpark ‘because of the relatively blind entry and the need to manoeuvre in the carpark’. The Commissioner’s comments impress the need for Council to apply

Page 36

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/caselaw%20/ll_caselaw.nsf/pages/cl_lec

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/caselaw%20/ll_caselaw.nsf/pages/cl_lec


particular care in assessing proposals for basement parking in relation to child care centre proposals.

The Commissioner noted that the potential impacts of the car parking layout ‘are significant and warrant the refusal of the application for this reason alone’.

In respect to solar access to an adjoining property, the Commissioner noted that ‘even though the proposed use is not residential, the building form takes its design parameters from the development standards for residential buildings in DCP 2001... [and] satisfies the height and setback standards…I accept that reasonable attempts have been made, including amendments to the upper level of the building adjoining the common boundary, to maintain a reasonable solar access to the adjoining property’.

In addressing the matter of streetscape character and compliance with the relevant Residential 2(a) zone objectives under LEP 2001, the Commissioner took account of the following:

The relevant DCP (DCP 2001) provides requirements for streetscape, building form, building design and appearance and materials and colours. It appears that where the building can meet or better the relevant standards under this plan (including height, floor space ratio, setbacks) then this is a relevant matter in determining that the development is consistent with the objectives of the zone.

The development met the DCP requirements for single dwellings in relation to front, side and rear setbacks, soft soil zone, private open space, and number of storeys. The Commissioner stated that ‘while the proposed development is designed to cater for a form of development that is not residential, the proposed use is nonetheless a permissible use within the zone. I acknowledge that reasonable attempts have been made to provide a development that is consistent with the character of the existing and proposed residential area and as such is consistent with the objectives of the zone pursuant to clause 16(3) of LEP 2001 and the relevant requirements in … DCP 2001’.

The inference we have drawn from the Commissioner’s comments is that, where a proposed child care centre is on land zoned Residential 2(a), compliance with the single dwelling requirements of the DCP goes a long way towards the development satisfying the character objectives of that zone.

In respect to noise impacts, the Commissioner considered that the noise should be addressed in an overall plan of management for the centre; that some form of physical barrier should be provided because of ‘the spontaneous and excessive noise that can be generated from the external play areas notwithstanding the best intentions of the childcare staff and the existence of noise management strategies’. He was not prepared to accept the conclusions in the applicant’s acoustic report without further assessment of the noise impacts, particularly from the external play areas.

In regard to the need for child care in the local area, the Commissioner stated that the ‘potential oversupply of childcare centres is not a normal consideration in the assessment of development applications. The planning process is to identify opportunities, through the zoning land, to facilitate development. Even accepting that there are other childcare centres in the vicinity of the site, [it] is not appropriate for the Court or council to make judgments on the suitability or otherwise of competing applications’.

Page 37


Other cases

There are limitations in reviewing judgments the Land and Environment Court involving child care centre proposals in different urban contexts as a tool in framing planning policy in a particular urban context. The Court has the responsibility to determine different applications involving a different set of circumstances in each case. Caution must be exercised in extending the conclusions reached in judgments in one case to any other case.

Council has identified that the size of individual child care centre proposals in residential neighbourhoods and excessive ‘clustering’ of centres in those neighbourhoods are key issues it needs to deal with in framing planning policy. Acknowledging the limitations of relevance noted above, we have identified two Court judgments which address these key issues.

The first cited judgment is by Commissioner Hussey in the matter of Poppets Child Care Centre v Fairfield City Council [2006] NSWLEC 315.

The appeal was lodged against council’s deemed refusal of a development application for a childcare centre to accommodate 68 children on a Residential zoned site at Cabramatta West. The proposal involved the enlargement of an existing 38-place centre. The area surrounding the development site was characterised by a mix of single residential development comprising 1 and 2 storeys of various ages and construction.

A key issue in the case was the council’s policy (under it’s DCP) of not supporting the development of childcare centres catering for more than 40 children in any zone, as centres of such size were unlikely to satisfy the objectives of the DCP.

Relevant DCP objectives included the following:

To ensure child-care centres are provided as equitably as possible across the LGA, subject to the areas of greatest need being adequately serviced.

To minimise the impact of child-care centres on residential amenity in terms of traffic generation and movement, traffic noise and noise from children by encouraging an even distribution of small centres in residential areas.

To encourage the clustering of child-care centres with community facilities and other complementary land-uses.

Controls to achieve the objectives included the submission by the applicant of a location analysis showing:

all existing child-care centres as well as all parks, schools and other community facilities within a 2 kilometre radius of the proposed centre;

the capacity of surrounding centres, as well as any potential health and safety risks;

an analysis of the need for a centre in the proposed location.

In the opinion of the Commissioner, the failure of the application to adequately respond to the provisions of DCP (that is, a locational analysis meeting the requirements of the DCP was not submitted) did not enable him to conclude that the objectives of the locational requirements and other general objectives were reasonably satisfied, and the appeal was dismissed on those grounds. The Commissioner did not get to point of judging the merits of the council’s numeric standards (including place limits). However, the judgment does

Page 38


suggest that the setting of place limits for child care centres is a relevant matter for a DCP to address if it is a strategy to achieve certain planning objectives (see above DCP objectives).

The second cited judgment is by Commissioner Tuor in the matter of Clear Ridge Developments Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 618.

The appeal was lodged against the refusal by the council of a development application to demolish the existing buildings and construct a 90-place child care centre at Northcote Road, Hornsby. The area surrounding the development site was characterised by detached houses on large allotments, although there were some non-residential and multi-unit housing developments in the vicinity. It was noted by the Commissioner that parts of the neighbourhood were ‘undergoing transition’.

A key issue in the case was that the proposal did not meet the objectives of the relevant zone and did not meet prescriptive measure for the maximum size of child care centres included in the council’s DCP.

The relevant LEP objectives are:

To promote a variety of housing types and other land uses compatible with a low density residential environment.

To provide for development that is within the environmental capacity of a low density residential environment.

The relevant DCP provision states:

To maintain the character of residential areas and minimise the impact of noise on adjacent properties, child care centres in residential zones should be designed to accommodate a maximum of 50 children of which no more than 30 should be in the two years and over age group.

The objective for the control stated in the DCP was to ‘control the density and scale of development to ensure compatibility with the density and scale of the surrounding area’. Relevant performance criteria included:

The density of development is to be in keeping with the bulk, scale and intensity of the surrounding area.

The scale of child care centres in residential zones should be of a scale and character consistent with surrounding development.

The Commissioner found that despite the proposal’s non compliance with the numerical control the proposal would maintain the character of the residential area and minimise the impact of noise on adjacent properties; and that the proposal met the relevant DCP objective and performance criteria and the relevant objective of the zone:

The objective recognises that there will be different housing types and land uses other than residential which is reflected in the zoning table. The key criteria is that the uses are compatible with a low density residential environment. In this case the nature of the use means that it will have different functional requirements to that of a house which will be reflected in the appearance of the building. For example a child care centre requires a greater number of car spaces which need to be

Page 39


accommodated on site. The Community Uses DCP permits these to be provided in the front setback area, which will mean that this area will have a different appearance to a dwelling. In accepting that a degree of difference will result from a different use, compatibility will be determined by whether the proposal responds to the essential elements that make up the character. In this case the building is setback further than adjoining properties, it accommodates parking and has two driveways. It is therefore different to the residential character of the area. However, from the street the car parking is screened from and is below street level. This combined with the fence will achieve a front setback area which although different is compatible. The building is single storey, also set down from the street and designed as a domestic rather than an institutional building. The width of its elevation to Northcote Road…will present in a similar manner to houses in the street and is compatible with the streetscape.

The appeal was upheld.

Unlike the Poppets case, the Commissioner here did assess the appropriateness and relevance of the council’s DCP standards in relation to maximum size of a child care centre. Essentially, she found that the proposal would still meet the relevant zone objective despite its non compliance with the DCP prescriptive controls. The judgment perhaps is instructive in that it shows that numeric limits in a DCP could be set aside by the Court where specific amenity concerns associated with a proposal (such as traffic, noise, etc.) can be adequately addressed and overall compliance with the LEP and DCP objectives can be achieved.

Notwithstanding that it relates to a particular case, the content of the judgment raises some doubt about the merit of imposing place limits without a LEP or DCP adequately articulating the link between the planning philosophy and the numeric control.

Implications of the applications assessments

The following implications emerged from our review of recent child care centre development applications and Court cases:

(In our view) Council needs to be clearer in parking requirements for similar urban contexts under LEP 2001 and SREP 28. Parking maximums under SREP should be pursued for all but the most accessible sites. Parking minimums achieved under LEP 2001 should not be used as a basis for application refusal.

Notwithstanding the objective of maintaining minimum on-site parking standards, it is likely that regardless of the level of on-site parking provided parents/carers would use on street parking spaces if they are available, and particularly where the street is lightly trafficked. There is no problem with this scenario provided that pedestrian safety can be managed. This is an approach endorsed by the Roads and Traffic Authority in its Guide to Traffic Generating Developments.

(In our view) Council should be cautious about imposing a blanket restriction of prohibiting child care centres fronting major roads as some sites, if they are large enough and wide enough, may be appropriate locations for this form of development.

Despite it being often mentioned by objectors that child care centres should not be clustered in low density residential areas, in our view it would be both difficult and inappropriate to impose a general separation control applying to only child care centres in a DCP. One reason for this is because the Council does not impose other minimum separation controls for other non residential uses in residential areas (such as

Page 40


churches, professional consulting rooms, home industries, etc.) and it would be difficult to substantiate a case for a control to be applied specifically to child care centres. Ultimately any control in a DCP must relate to a planning objective – for example, managing traffic, maintenance of a consistent dwelling house character. It would be difficult to justify a numeric standard that mitigated the cumulative adverse effects of ‘clustering’ (such as excessive traffic on local streets). In our view, if there are adverse effects anticipated to be generated by, say, a number of operating child care centres in one location, then the only reasonable means of addressing such impacts would be to consider each development proposal on its merits. If it can be demonstrated, in any particular case, that a proposal would have an unreasonable cumulative impact on a locality, and that impact cannot be satisfactorily managed via the imposition of conditions on the consent, then the Council can refuse the application on those grounds.

In terms of the above, we note that Commissioner Brown’s judgment in the Bechara matter (cited previously) reinforces our view that it is inappropriate for the Council to include anti-clustering standards in a development control plan.

4.2.5 Planners’ issues

An internal workshop was held with officers of Council’s development unit and community services department to understand the staff perspective on child care centre planning.

Key issues and matters raised from that workshop are summarised below:

Child care generally

It was verified by community services staff that, in their experience, most people with 0-2 year old children in child care prefer the place of care near their work and people with children aged 2 years and over care prefer the place of care to be nearer home to assist the child’s transition into the local school social network.

Community services staff noted that significant issue in the Council operated child care centres is the high demand (and lack of availability) for places for the 0-2 year olds as the privately run centres generally don’t often provide for them. Council’s most popular centre is the one closest to the Parramatta CBD. Most parents using this centre live in Harris Park.

Community services staff concerned about the ability under the Regulation for child care centres to be up to 90 places in size. A 90 place centre is considered by them to be too large in terms of the welfare of, and quality of care for, the children. Council’s centres range in size from 39 to 45 places.

Council receives very few complaints concerning the operation of current child care centres. Complaints that have been received have related to older centres (often under 30 places in size) which operate with minimal consent conditions. There also seems to be a correlation between the complaints and the age of people who live adjacent to the centre. It may be that older, retired residents are home during the day and would be more sensitive to impacts from the use of child care centres.

Applications generally

It was suggested that the recent spate of applications for child care centres was at least partly the result of developers seeking to add value to a Residential zoned site by securing an approval for a non residential use which is in demand and on-selling the

Page 41


land and the approval. Anecdotally, a reason put forward as to why this was occurring was that there is a lot of Residential 2(b) zoned land in the LGA which is not presently profitable to develop townhouses on.

In respect to hours of operation some centres are starting to seek to open on Saturdays to cater for people who work weekends. Longer hours may be acceptable in some circumstances such as in non residential and special use areas. For example, the Westmead Hospital centre stays open until 11pm to cater for parents who work shifts.

Some applications have been received for two-storey child care centres. This can be a problem for children needing to access the outdoor play area.

Planning control and guidance

The issue was raised about permissibility of child care centres in the proposed Residential R1 zone of the Standard LEP. It was established that child care centres may, at Council’s discretion, be permitted in this proposed zone, however written confirmation on this issue is being sought from the Department of Planning. A response was yet to be received.

The Department of Planning Circular G2 addressed permissibility of child care centres in land use zones. However, staff later advised that this circular has now been revoked.

Council’s zoning provisions generally preclude the operation of a child care centre in a Residential zone where the operator resides on the same site as the centre.

The predominant issues that objectors raise in development applications for child care centres are traffic and noise impacts and safety within the site.

Council’s current controls are not sufficiently clear on the following matters:

suitability of the site / preferred site for a child care centre;

landscaping;

how to best approach the hard stand area at the front;

height of shade structures and how close should they be to the boundary;

age of children in care;

hours of operation;

waste disposal;

external lighting; and

2 storey centres.

Those locations where child care centres have not been supported by either Councillors or the wider community in the past include sites fronting cul-de-sacs, sites fronting busy roads (whether or not access to the centre is available from that road), sites where the effects of noise and air pollution on the children may be present.

In regard to traffic and access, the view was expressed that all proposals should allow cars to enter and exit the site in a forward direction. There may be a case for possible exceptions on quiet streets. Other objectives should be the separation of cars and pedestrians, and to encourage child care centres near transport nodes (although it was noted that some parents don’t like taking public transport if they have children with them).

Page 42


It is generally inappropriate for child care centres to be located on busy roads where there is no opportunity for on-street car parking. An exception may be larger sites with wide frontages. Centres on busy roads often need more generous front setbacks for the car parking area due to exit speeds.

Car parking requirements need to be clearer and the issue of parking maximums prescribed under the REP. The philosophy of SREP 28 in reducing the reliance on cars is appropriate for many types of land use. However, it is hard to justify with a child care centre as most parents choose to drop their children off by car rather than travel with them on public transport.

Measures should be implemented to reduce the impact of car parking on the streetscape appearance of the proposal. Basement parking may assist in this regard. Many proposed new centres include basement car parking and Council has generally supported this approach, except in Heritage Conservation Areas. Basement parking however raises issues with getting pedestrians from the car park into the centre and some consents have conditions requiring stair ascenders.

Applications for child care centres within bigger, multi-use developments are being received. There is a need for future controls to address possible conflicts between land uses.

Staff agreed that it would be beneficial to encourage child care centres to co-locate with other compatible land uses such as schools.

There is a need for a landscaped buffer zone at the side and rear of child care centres. Most centres don’t want to provide a buffer as it takes away from their ability to meet the minimum play area requirements. Play areas can cause problems for the neighbours if they are located at the side and/or there is no buffer. Play areas can work within the front setback if there is a generous setback.

It was agreed that the size of the centre is a relevant planning consideration and smaller centres are generally more compatible with quiet streets. It was also agreed that battle-axe allotments and flood prone land are also inappropriate.

Currently, Council uses the ‘5dBA above background’ standard for acoustic compliance. It was also noted that some measures recommended in the acoustic reports can have flow-on effects in terms of amenity.

Requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) need to be made plain to applicants. It was noted that unlike dwelling houses, centres require a 3 metre side setback for fire rating in the case that there are openings.

It was suggested that it may be appropriate to have distinct development standards for both purpose-built child care centres and centres that involve the conversion or adaptation of a dwelling houses. However, concern was expressed about the possibility of Council going from having no controls to the other extreme of being overly-prescriptive.

Planning process

Pre-lodgment meetings are not mandatory but are encouraged. Applications for child care centres are always required to be accompanied by acoustic reports and traffic reports.

Page 43


The matter of minimum qualifications for those preparing plans for child care centre proposals was discussed, including whether the persons should be a registered architect. It was noted that no specific requirements are applied currently, despite the fact that in order to obtain a licence from DoCS, the proponent must submit plans that are ‘drawn by a person who is an architect within the meaning of the Architects Act 2003 or who is accredited by the Building Designers Association of NSW Inc in relation to the design of the class of buildings concerned’.

In the experience of those staff who attended the workshop, the views of resident objectors hold a lot of weight in Councillors consideration of applications. The need for child care services appears to carry less weight in circumstances where a lot of resident objectors are present.

It is difficult for Councillors and staff to deal with child care centre applications in the absence of specific or prescriptive controls. The view was expressed that Councillors have set aside part or all of the officer’s recommendation for a child care centre proposal because there are no standards to back up the officer’s recommendations. This has led in some cases to very prescriptive conditions of consent being imposed on the development approval (for example, conditioning the times that the gardener/cleaner may come to a centre, conditioning the times that children may play outside).

In recent times DoCS have taken a step back from the planning process. They no longer check plans of proposed child care centres prior to development consent being issued by the Council. Instead they rely on the certification of an architect to say that the plans comply with the Regulation. Community services staff advised that DoCS only inspect the premises prior to issuing a license to operate. By this stage, it is possible that non-complying aspects of the development have previously been missed and can often not be corrected if it is part of the design.

When Council receives an application, plans are referred to Council’s community services staff who check for numerical compliance with the Regulation, but this relies on the applicant having provided a schedule of areas – no physical measurement of the plans is undertaken. The requirement for an architect to certify plans is usually imposed as a condition of development consent.

Child care in employment centres

Their appears to be strong demand for child care centres in the Parramatta CBD. A 60 place centre is proposed to be included as part of the Civic Place redevelopment. The Police building includes a centre on the ground floor, but after it was built the occupants found it to be too small, looked to find a site for children aged over 2 and couldn’t find anything suitable. Council recommended the Attorney-General’s Department include a centre in their proposal. Now that they are almost completed, they are interested in a centre but they didn’t leave enough room for one.

Staff suggested that one mechanism that could be used to encourage child care centres in the CBD would be through planning incentives such as floor space ratio bonuses.

Harris Park may have potential to meet some of the demand for child care centres as it is in walking distance from the city centre. However, there are still issues of vehicle access and parking.

Council has had limited experience of considering child care centre proposals in industrial areas. There may be circumstances where a centre may be compatible with

Page 44


current land uses but those uses may change over time to less-compatible land uses such as brothels, loud or offensive industries etc.. The presence of a child care centre may act to frustrate the primary objective of the employment zone which is to support the location of new and expanded industry. Child care centres may be more appropriate in light industrial, business park-style areas such as Norwest. Stand-alone sites such as Coca-Cola may also be suitable.

4.2.6 Resident survey

In order to understand neighbour amenity issues associated with child care centres, Council commissioned a survey of residences neighbouring 5 child care centres built in the Parramatta LGA in the past five years.

The survey was prepared for Council by Newplan and Cred Community Planning and asked residents to rate their level of satisfaction with the operation of the child care centre. The survey focussed on testing perceived (pre-development application) and actual (post-development application) amenity impacts of the relevant child care centre.

The child care centres that were selected for the survey were chosen by Council staff. A copy of the questionnaire and more detailed results of the survey are included in Appendix B.

The survey was sent to 40 residential premises. Council received 17 completed surveys by the closing date of 15 November 2006. Details of the child care centres the subject of the survey and number of surveys returned are detailed in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5: Child care centres subject of resident survey

Centre name

Address Surveys returned

Centre type

Hours Total child care

places

Bountiful Early Learning Centre

49 Fitzwilliam Road Old Toongabbie

4 LDC private 7am to 6.00pm 30

Little Treasures Pre-school

52 Barellan Avenue Carlingford

5 PS private 8am to 4.00pm 29

Angel Babies 68 Thomas Street Parramatta

2 LDC private 7.30am to 6pm 15

Toongabbie Pre-school

23 Barangaroo Road Toongabbie

2 LDC private 7.30 am to 6pm

57

Rowley Kindergarten

7 Rowley Road Guildford 4 LDC private 7am to 6pm 29

LDC=long day care

PS=pre-school

Note: all centres provided places for children aged 2-5 years only, except Toongabbie Pre-school that offered 18 of 57 places for babies aged under 2 years

The main impacts residents were most concerned about prior to the centre operating were:

noise from children playing,

excessive traffic in street,

reduced property values, and

Page 45


loss of privacy.

These same impacts were identified as most significant by residents after the centre began operation. That is, from the surveys returned, there was not a significant difference between the residents’ anticipated amenity concerns (prior to the centre being approved) and the amenity impacts they say they had actually experienced (now that the centre is operating).

Impacts that were considered the least significant were:

overshadowing caused by development, and

centre building not fitting in with neighbourhood character or streetscape.

Respondents were also asked to comment generally on planning for child care centres. The main comments provided by respondents related to noise, parking, and a desire that centres should not be located in residential streets (in particular, not locating more than one centre in any one street).

Overall, 72 percent of respondents rated the impacts of the nearby child care centre on the neighbourhood as negative, and 12 percent as positive.

Results of the survey and their relevance to understanding the impacts of other child care centres throughout the LGA should be viewed with caution for the following reasons:

The very small sample size. An average of 8 immediate neighbours of centres were sent surveys, however returns were only received from between 2 and 5 neighbours per centre. The time constraints of this Study did not allow for a broader sample of centres to be surveyed.

Similarly, the limitations of the survey method being a mail-back questionnaire. This method would tend to invite participants who view the operation of the centre in a negative light more so than those who are either unaffected or view the operation in a positive light.

The survey did not canvass issues such as the age of participants and whether or not they are usually home during the times that the relevant child care centre operates.

We would recommend that if Council wishes to obtain a fuller understanding of neighbour impacts, a face-to-face survey method is recommended.

However the survey is useful in showing that, with at least the child care centres the subject of the survey, adverse impacts on neighbourhood amenity from centre operations are real for some neighbours. The concerns that some residents had prior to the centre’s establishment have in their view materialised during the operation phase. The results reinforce the case for Council to prepare more detailed planning controls for new and enlarged child care centres in low density residential areas.

4.2.7 Best practice in centre location and design

Location

Other NSW councils have identified relevant criteria for preferred sites for child care centres in their areas (refer to the analysis included in Appendix C).

Page 46


ECA11 have also published a position statement on planning the location of centre-based early childhood services.

ECA state that careful planning of the location of a centre-based early childhood service is a fundamental first step towards ensuring the provision of a high quality service, and the location of services should:

maximise the potential for children to learn from community resources;

actively contribute to the stimulation of children’s growth and development through play;

extend and promote children’s curiosity and creativity;

protect children from dangers and ensure their safety; and

actively enhance and promote children’s physical health and safety.

Other relevant matters identified by ECA concerning location of centres include the following:

Services should be located near community learning resources such as schools, libraries, places of work, shops, museums, galleries, nature areas, zoos, botanical gardens, other natural areas; they should be located in areas of natural surveillance and in proximity to other activities perceived to be positive, desirable and safe.

Location in a residential area helps to suggest a home-like environment which is inviting and non-threatening to young children. Impacts of children’s noise on neighbours can be significantly reduced if both the program and the playground are well-planned, so that there is a generous allocation of space and children are actively engaged in interesting and challenging activities.

Services should be located away from all possible dangers and noxious elements.

Negative features include adjacent to major arterial roads (air pollution, noise), heavy industries (air pollution, noise), high rise buildings (wind tunnel effects, shade, heat), public conveniences (safety), swamps or creeks (mosquitoes, reptiles), and vegetation on adjacent properties (noxious or toxic pollens, or safety hazards from falling seeds, nuts or branches).

ECA recommends that centres should only be located on roads which carry fewer than 15,000 vehicles per day, and that sites on main or arterial roads should not be approved for child care centres.

Design

Among the most critical design considerations are the amount and organisation of both indoor and outdoor areas. Research studies confirm that limited space and poorly organised space negatively affect child and staff behaviours (ECA Position Statement on Physical Environments for Centre-Based Early Childhood Services, 2004).

DoCS (with Walsh, 1998) and ECA (2004) have prepared documents addressing best practice in the design of physical environments for centre-based child care services.

11 The ECA or Early Childhood Australia Incorporated was established in 1938 and is an organisation advocating to ensure quality, social justice and equity in all issues relating to the education and care of children from birth to eight years.

Page 47


Page 48

These best practice documents identify the following minimum requirements for child care centres:

Unencumbered indoor play space: 4.5 square metres per place

Unencumbered outdoor play space:

25 square metres per place (for a 25 place centre)



ECA in its position statement has assessed that child care centres designed in accordance with the best practice guidelines would require the site areas identified in Table 4.6 (exclusive of car parking and building setback areas).

Table 4.6: ECA assessed site areas for different sized child care centres

Centre size Building area (m2)

Transition area (m2)

Playground (m2)

Total site area including boundary

clearance (m2)

25 places 200 65 625 960

40 places 450 100 800 1,450

75 places 650 150 1,125 2,050 Source: ECA Policy: Physical environments for centre-based early childhood services, http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/read_our_policies/physical_environments_for_centre_based_early_childhood_services.html

The ECA findings correlate closely to an analysis prepared by Newplan and Families at Work (2006) for Hornsby Shire Council (refer Table 4.7).

The total space required for a best practice designed centre is generally much larger than the size of sites the subject of recent child care centre development applications considered by Council (refer Table 4.4).

The implication of this is that if the Council wants to pursue best practice design in child care centres in its planning policy then the centres would generally need to be located on larger sites. However, blanket application of the best practice space standards to all urban contexts could have the effect constraining site availability flowing onto reduced supply of future child care places.

http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/read_our_policies/physical_environments_for_centre_based_early_childhood_services.html






































































Table 4.7: Child care centre space projected space needs table for Shire of Hornsby

No. of places

Centre attribute Standards cited in 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Indoor space (m2) (m2) (m2) (m2) (m2) (m2) (m2) (m2) Unencumbered indoor play space Best practice guidelines (i.e. 4.5m2 per place) 135 180 225 270 315 360 405

Centre administration and parent consultation CS Reg 2004, cl 30; Best practice guidelines 16 16 21 21 26 26 26

Staff respite area CS Reg 2004, cl 30; Best practice guidelines 16 16 16 18 21 24 27

Sleeping room CS Reg 2004, cl 30, 36; Best practice guidelines 22.5 30 37.5 45 52.5 60 67.5

Laundry CS Reg 2004, cl 31; Best practice guidelines 12 12 12 12 15 15 15

Storage areas CS Reg 2004, cl 37; Best practice guidelines 8 8 16 16 24 24 24

Kitchen CS Reg 2004, cl 33; Best practice guidelines 16 16 16 20 20 24 24

Bathroom/toilet - adult Best practice guidelines 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Bathroom/toilet - children Best practice guidelines 12 12 12 15 18 18 21

Nappy changing/bottle preparation CS Reg 2004, cl 34,35; Best practice guidelines 20 20 25 25 30 30 30

Allowance for other areas considered best practice but not included in the Regulation

Multi-purpose space Best practice guidelines 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Entry foyer Best practice guidelines 15 15 15 20 20 25 25 Total Gross floor area (m2) 312.5 375 455.5 532 621.5 696 764.5

Outdoor space (m2)

No. of parking spaces required Community Uses DCP, p7 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5

Car parking and vehicle circulation Community Uses DCP, p7 225 300 375 450 525 600 675

Landscaped front setback Community Uses DCP, p7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Usable unencumbered outdoor play space Best practice guidelines (i.e. 15m2 per place) 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350

Transition area between indoor and outdoor areas Best practice guidelines 75 100 125 150 175 200 225

Page 49


Page 50

No. of places

Centre attribute Standards cited in 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Total Outdoor Space (m2) 850 1100 1350 1600 1850 2100 2350 Total minimum site area required (m2) 1162.5 1475 1805.5 2132 2471.5 2796 3114.5

Minimum landscaped or pervious area required (m2) Community Uses DCP, p10 523.1 663.8 812.5 959.4 1112.2 1258.2 1401.5

Site cover (%) Community Uses DCP, p4 33.3% 32.2% 32.2% 32.0% 32.2% 32.0% 31.8%

Maximum permissible floor space (m2) Community Uses DCP, p5 465 590 722.2 852.8 988.6 1118.4 1245.8

Notes for the table:

Projected space needs for centre-based care assume 30 percent of total places are made available for 0-2 year olds.

The projected space needs relate to providing a purpose built centre rather than a dwelling house conversion.

Standards based on Children’s Services Regulation 2004 in the first instance and then the Best Practice Guidelines (1998), where appropriate. Note that unencumbered indoor and outdoor space based on the Best Practice Guidelines, and the lower standards in the 2004 Regulation, if applied, would significantly lower child care centre indoor and outdoor spaces.

Conversely, factors that would drive up minimum site area required would be minimum side and rear setbacks, retention of existing trees, heritage conservation constraints, asset protection zones on bush fire prone land, etc.


4.2.8 Other councils’ approaches

Many other NSW councils have prepared local policies and development control plans relating to the planning of child care centres.

Strategies and development control provisions relating to child care planning and used in a number of NSW councils were reviewed by Newplan. A list of the planning documents reviewed is contained in the References section. A summary of the content of planning provisions for child care centres is included in Appendix C.

Other councils’ strategies and approaches have in some cases been used as a basis for the recommended draft development control plan (Section 5.3).

4.3 Summary

LEP 2001 and SREP 28 are the principal tools Council uses to plan and control child care centres in the LGA, while licensing of the centres is the responsibility of NSW DoCS under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 and the Children’s Services Regulation 2004.

The Regulation contains various requirements which, to a large degree, dictate the minimum size of such centres in relation to the number of children being cared for. In any particular case, a child care centre cannot exceed 90 places. The 2004 Regulation does not address a range of other matters including parking and access, building appearance and other external areas, privacy and noise.

LEP 2001 and SREP 28 provide only basic planning policy on potential location of child care centres. Council’s DCP 2005 does not address design issues for these land uses – thus there is a need for Council to prepare a development control plan with provisions applying to child care centres.

Various child care centre development applications and court judgements were reviewed. Some of the issues that were noted in that review included the following:

Frequently cited neighbours’ objections to proposals included noise impacts, traffic safety, car parking, hours of operation, air and noise pollution impacts on children in care, and negative impacts on property values. Notwithstanding Council receives very few complaints from operating child care centres.

There needs to be more consistency in the application of car parking standards for child care centres. This arises from a maximum rate being prescribed for development in the area covered by SREP 28, while the same standard is a minimum rate for development in areas not covered by SREP 28.

While many sites fronting may be unsuitable for child care centres due to traffic and pollution concerns, sites with a generous site width and area may be suitable in some cases.

While limiting the number of child care centres in a particular residential area may have advantages in limiting cumulative environmental impacts (such as traffic), it would be difficult to define and defend an acceptable development standard. Cumulative impacts are a legitimate concern that should be treated on the merits of the individual case.

Page 51


High demand and low availability of child care places for children under 2 years of age.

Applications for child care centres within bigger, multi-use developments are being received by Council. There is a need to encourage child care centres in centres and for future development controls to address possible conflicts between land uses in these areas.

DoCS does not ordinarily provide design advice to child care centre proponents or councils, and becomes involved in the licence approval process when a development consent is issued. This raises the issue that improving the design of child care centres is now firmly a function of a council’s development consent process.

Page 52


5. Land use planning options and recommendations

5.1 Recommended planning framework and planning objectives

5.1.1 Best practice planning principles

A ‘best practice’ local planning framework for child care centres should encompass the principles of completeness, clarity, involvement, improvement and robustness.

Completeness

Addresses Council’s responsibilities under relevant statutes.

Clarifies the planning roles of Council and other agencies.

Identifies, or refers to, all relevant controls and standards; including other legislation and Regulations, the Standard LEP, the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standards and best practice design guidelines.

Refers to and incorporates other standards, documents and agencies that can help applicants deliver excellent outcomes.

Clarity

The approvals process is clearly described. This includes describing the steps, information requirements and approvals required in order for a child care centre to be established.

There is a reasonable degree of certainty in how development applications will be dealt with and how decisions will be made.

Is easy to understand, and is available in a variety of media.

Identifies the individuals and organisations who can provide further information or assistance.

Involvement

Is a fair framework that does not weigh the interests of a particular group above the interests of another group.

Provides the necessary information to, and allows for appropriate involvement of, parties with an interest in a planning decision.

Improvement

Seeks to implement excellence, rather than just minimum standards, and to avoid poor and inferior development outcomes.

Page 53


Recognises market failings and limitations and encourages high demand and high priority issues in the provision of child care to be addressed.

Seeks to resolve as many issues as possible before a formal development application is lodged.

Robustness

Is consistent with Council’s other plans and policies for its area.

All planning controls are based on both planning objectives and sound research. Reflects current, not superseded or outmoded, standards and practices.

Clearly describes what the mandatory requirements are and what the discretionary requirements are.

Contains standards and controls that are succinct, consistent and unambiguous; identifies in what circumstances those controls may be varied and what is the process for those seeking a variation.

Contains controls that respond to the physical characteristics of the area; and that encourage a safe and attractive environment for both users and neighbours of child care centres.

There are sufficient and appropriate resources deployed to implement the framework.

5.1.2 Development and planning objectives

Planning objectives that are recommended to implement the best practice planning principles and underpin the proposed development control plan for child care centres in the City of Parramatta are listed below.

1. Promote excellence and best practice in the location and physical design of child care centres.

2. Promote the creation of superior child-friendly environments and the operation of high quality early childhood education programs in child care centres.

3. Promote the establishment of centre-based children’s services on a range of sites throughout the City of Parramatta.

4. Promote the establishment of children’s services that meet the needs of the community, including the provision of more places for children aged under 2 years of age and the provision of places in and around employment nodes.

5. Provide guidance for Council, the community and children’s services providers regarding the minimum development standards that apply to the location and physical design of child care centres.

6. Create a planning framework for child care centres that effectively balances the rights and expectations of residents, providers of children’s services and users of children’s services.

Page 54


7. Ensure that proposals for new and enlarged child care centres respond positively to their context and setting and minimise impacts on the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

8. To the extent that design of physical elements can influence such outcomes, encourage the development of child care centres that maximise the safety and well-being of children in care.

9. Describe the steps, information requirements and approvals required in order for a new child care centre to be established or an existing centre to be enlarged.

10. Establish development standards and controls for child care centres that are succinct, consistent and unambiguous; and that state in what circumstances those controls may be varied and what is the process for an applicant seeking a variation.

5.1.3 Recommended land use zoning strategy

It is recommended that Council support the location of child care centres in a range of zones throughout the City, including both Residential and non Residential zones. This is because children’s services should be conveniently located to those who parents or carers who need the service. This strategy includes allowing child care centres close to where people both live and work.

Council’s current policy expressed through LEP 2001 and SREP 28, which permits child care centres in a wide range of land use zones is generally supported, with the exception that child care centres should not be permitted in areas or zones where general and heavier forms of industry are present or (due to the zoning regime) could be present in the future.

We find no justification to alter current policy of permitting, with Council’s consent, child care centres in Residential zones. A policy that only allowed these facilities say in centres endorsed by the Residential Development Strategy could have the side effects of housing development sites in the centres being sterilised and site availability for child care centres being severely constrained. This is undesirable in the context of existing demand for children’s services (particularly for child care places for children aged under 2 years) not being met.

5.2 Outline of draft development control plan

The draft development control plan, through its planning controls, seeks to address the planning question that initiated this project. That is, how can the Council best balance the following planning objectives:

To provide reasonable and sufficient opportunities for child care centres to be established and meet local demands for this type of facility.

To control the location, scale, design, form and layout of facilities so that the amenity of areas surrounding the facilities is maintained.

The draft development control plan is divided into three main sections. A list of the names of all sections shown in the box below.

Page 55


Introduction and Preamble

Section 1 (Introduction) establishes the context for the plan, where and to what development it applies to, the role and relationship of other plans and policies, purposes and aims of the plan, and definitions used in the plan. The Preamble to the plan establishes that Council is committed to best practice in the provision of children’s services in the City. This is important as the plan, in later sections, refers to best practice guidelines and standards that are incorporated into the DCP controls.

Application Preparation and Pre-lodgment

Section 2 (Application Preparation and Pre-lodgement) documents the ‘how’ of a proponent going about establishing or enlarging a child care centre.

Page 56


The section refers to the processes that an applicant should follow before a development application is lodged. The sections explains the approval process in ten succinct steps (including the role of DoCS) and consultation strategies and requirements prior to lodgement. The section also details the professionals that an applicant should retain, and the technical assessments that will be required to be undertaken, in the concept design and application preparation stage. The plan sets out in what circumstances the following assessments or reports will be required to accompany an application:

Architect’s plans and statement of compliance

Landscape architect plans

Child care centre operational plan of management

Waste management plan

Access and mobility audit

Shade audit

Traffic and transport assessment

Acoustic assessment

Land contamination assessment

Heritage assessment

Electro magnetic field or radio frequency impacts assessment

Air quality assessment

Fire safety and evacuation plan

Objectives and Standards for Child Care Centres

Section 3 (Objectives and Standards for Child Care Centres) comprises the objectives and development standards for the location and design of future child care centres in the City in the following categories:

Site Selection

Child Care Centres in Residential Zones

Child Care Centres in Other Zones

Access and Car Parking

Acoustic and Visual Privacy

Indoor Areas

Outdoor Areas

Planning objectives are assigned to each category so that where there is debate about the merits of applying a particular standard, the Council can revert to the objectives to determine if a variation to a standard should be supported.

The following discusses key matters included in Section 3.

Page 57


Site Selection

Six objectives and 9 criteria are included for preferred sites for child care centres. The objectives emphasise the need for sites to provide a safe environment for children, sites that are close to amenities and services, and for centres to not interfere with the operation of surrounding land uses. While the zoning of a particular site can permit a child care centre use, it is the site selection criteria in the DCP which Council will refer to and assist it in its determination of whether it should permit a child care centre on that site.

The plan also refers to standards for:

Site size and shape – no minimum site size and the minimum indoor and outdoor space requirements of the Regulation are upheld. The exceptions are:

child care centres located on major roads and centres;

child care centres with more than 40 places in residential areas; and

child care centres located in Open Space or Special Use zones,

then best practice minimum indoor and outdoor space standards are required. Despite there being no minimum site size, the plan explains that larger sites are preferred because of their greater design and facility planning flexibility and so are more likely to support higher quality care outcomes.

Sites with frontage and access to major roads – a range of criteria is included to guide Council and applicants about in what circumstances it may be appropriate to allow a child care centre on a major road. The intent of the controls is to allow child care centres where traffic safety and children’s health objectives can be achieved. This will generally only be on large sites with a wide frontage.

Child Care Centres in Residential Zones

The plan distinguishes between the control of child care centres in the City’s residential and non residential zones. The reason for this is that child care centres, although being a community facility, are a non residential use that, if large enough and in certain circumstances can potentially generate undesirable and unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of residential areas.

The plan includes controls that focus on only allowing child care centres in residential areas that are of a scale and character and have operating characteristics (hours of operation) that are compatible with those areas.

The main control to achieve these objectives is limiting the size of centres generally to 40 places. The 40 place maximum is similar to maximums imposed in DCPs prepared by other councils to limit the scale of these uses in residential areas (for example Fairfield (40), Canterbury (40), Holroyd (45), Hornsby (50), Ku-ring-gai (50), Wollongong (49) refer Appendix C).

The plan however recognises that more needs to be done to address unmet demand through encouraging the provision of more places for children aged under 2 years of age. The plan recognises that places for under 2s are more expensive to provide and so it is more likely that only the larger child care centres could afford to provide a reasonable component of babies places. It cannot be assumed that centres in non residential zones will be able to provide all of the required care for the under 2s, as these sites are more limited and are generally more expensive to develop than sites in residential areas.

Page 58


As a result, the plan incorporates a conditional concession to the maximum 40 place limit for centres in Residential areas. A child care centre may be allowed in a Residential zone with more than 40 places (but not more than 75 places) where:

a minimum of 33% of the places are provided for children under 2 years of age; and

best practice standards of both indoor and outdoor unencumbered space is to be provided. The best practice standards are interpreted as a minimum of 4.5 square metres indoor unencumbered space per place and a minimum of 15 square metres per place for outdoor unencumbered space.

The concession is considered a reasonable compromise that will genuinely promote the provision of more places for under 2s while ensuring that these larger centres are located on good, well sized sites where neighbour impacts can be more easily managed.

Child Care Centres in Other Zones

The emphasis in the controls for child care centres in other zones is to promote child care centres in workplaces while ensuring that the health and safety of users is maintained and that centres do not affect the ongoing or future use of surrounding lands for non residential purposes.

This is proposed to be achieved through relying on the minimum space standards of the Regulation, ensuring centres are not located near to noise and odour generating uses and providing specific controls for centres that are located above ground level in the Parramatta CBD.

Access and Car Parking

The planning objectives for access and car parking for child care centres emphasise the need for safe and convenient accessibility to all centres.

The existing parking standard of 1 space for every 4 children is maintained in the plan (including a minimum provision for disabled parking) and is intended to apply equally whether the site is located in the area covered by SREP 28 or LEP 2001. Where a proposal is located in the SREP 28 area and it is proposed to provide less than the maximum rate included in that plan (that is, 1 space per 4 children) then the proposal is to be justified by a traffic and transport assessment.

Under the terms of the plan, Council could also consider the provision of less than 1 parking space per 4 children where there is sufficient safe on street parking available at appropriate times located outside the development and the development would not result in any adverse impact on the safe operation of the surrounding road network.

The plan also includes 8 criteria for the design of parking and driveway areas and 7 criteria for the design of pedestrian access arrangements.

Acoustic and Visual Privacy

The plan includes standards or matters to be considered for maintaining an acceptable acoustic environment within and outside of child care centres. The plan includes a range of suggestions as to how noise transmission from centres to neighbouring uses can be minimised. In any event, all child care centre proposals are required by the plan to be

Page 59


accompanied by an acoustic assessment by a qualified consultant that addresses or includes:

best practice guidelines;

noise measurements on and surrounding the site;

predictions of noise levels;

details of proposed acoustic control measures;

details of height, materials and acoustic performance of fencing where fencing; and

a statement certifying that the development is capable of operating without causing a nuisance and able to operate without undue noise disturbance from external noise sources.

The main visual privacy control in the plan is the requirement for the development design to minimise overlooking and to incorporate a minimum 1 metre landscaping strip along side and rear boundaries.

Indoor Areas

The controls for indoor areas encourage the provision of best practice standards for unencumbered play space and best practice layout of internal areas. However, the controls recognise that this may not be possible for centres in some areas and on some sites. In such cases, the Regulation requirements are the minimum requirements. A possible example could be centres in heritage conservation areas (such as Harris Park) where sites and buildings are relatively small.

The plan also includes a range of matters to be addressed in the internal design of child care centres including:

internal circulation and access;

safety and security arrangements;

appropriate lighting and ventilation;

appropriate use of glass, surfaces and appliances; and

appropriate storage areas.

Outdoor Areas

Well designed outdoor play spaces in a child care centre will assist in not only providing a higher quality of child care but also in the centre achieving its acoustic privacy objectives. The plan therefore places considerable emphasis on careful and considered design and layout of these spaces.

The plan includes numerous criteria to create interesting, stimulating, safe, secure and functional play spaces.

The plan also requires these spaces to be designed by a qualified landscape architect or other landscape design professional with demonstrated experience in the design of children’s play spaces, and that the design is to meet relevant Australian Standards and the best practice guidelines issued by DoCS.

Page 60


The plan also refers to standards for the following:

Centres located in Parramatta CBD – including where it is impracticable to provide the required minimum amount of useable outdoor play space and that, subject to certain standards being met, Council may permit the provision of some or all of that space in an indoor space. The intent of this standard is to promote greater provision of child care places close to the heart of Parramatta.

Transition areas - a transition area is an area between the building and the playground (such as a veranda) that provides supporting space for both indoor and outdoor activities. The plan requires all child care centres to have an adequately sized transition area.

Fencing and landscaping plan.

Page 61


References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2002), Child Care Australia, Catalogue No. 4402.0

Australian Government (2005), 2004 Census of Child Care Services Summary Booklet

Auburn Council (2000), Child Care Centre Development Control Plan

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (undated). Fact Sheet 8 The Controversy Over Electromagnetic Fields and Possible Adverse Health Effects

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (2004). Fact Sheet 4 Mobile Telephone Communication Antennas: Are They a Health Hazard?

Bankstown City Council (2004), Development Control Plan No. 29 Child Care Centres

Burwood Council (2006), Development Control Plan No. 26 Child Care Centres

Canterbury City Council (1997), Development Control Plan No. 25 Child Care Centres Code

Cardew Consulting (2006), Parramatta City Council Housing Market Study

Centre for Community Child Health (2006), Policy Brief No 2 2006: Quality in Children’s Services

City of Sydney Council (2005), Child Care Centres Development Control Plan 2005

Children’s Services Regulation 2004, www.legislation.nsw.gov.au, accessed 15 November 2006

Department of Community Services (18 Dec 2003). Draft Children’s Services Regulation: An evaluation of potential benefits and costs

Department of Family and Community Services (2003), 2002 Census of Child Care Services, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of Family and Community Services (2004), Planning to succeed in Child Care

Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (2004), Transport and Population Data Centre NSW SLA Population Projections, 2004 Release – SLA Summary V1 Parramatta

Department of Urban Affairs and Planning and the NSW Play Alliance (1999), Child-friendly Environments

Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Early Childhood Australia (1995), Policy: Physical Environments for centre-based early childhood services. http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/position_statements/ physical_environments_for_centre_based_early_childhood_services.html. accessed 9 November 2006

Page 62

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/position_statements/%20physical_environments_for_centre_based_early_childhood_services.html

http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/position_statements/%20physical_environments_for_centre_based_early_childhood_services.html


Fairfield City Council (2006), Fairfield City Wide Development Control Plan, Chapter 13 Child Care Centres

Fremantle Council (1997), Development and Land Use Policy Manual Section D.B.U3 Child Care Centres/ Family Day Care Centres

Gosford City Council (undated), Development Control Plan No. 117 Child Care Centres

Holroyd City Council (2001), Development Control Plan No. 27 Guidelines for the Development of Child Care Centres

Hornsby Shire Council (2004), Community Uses Development Control Plan

Ku-ring-gai Council (undated), Draft Development Control Plan Child Care Centres

Liverpool City Council (undated), Development Control Plan Child Care Centres

Liverpool City Council (2004), Child Care Centres Design Advise and Contact Services

Local Government and Shires Association of NSW (2001), Policy Framework for Children and Family Services for Local Government in NSW

Moore, A. (2005), “Childcare: Who Cares?”, Sunday Herald, 1 May 2005

Moore, G., Sugiyama, T. and O’Donnell, L. (2003), Children’s Physical Environments Rating Scale, Paper presented at the Australian Early Childhood Education 2003 Conference, Hobart, Australia

Mosman Municipal Council (2004), How to set up a Child Care Centre in Mosman

Newplan and Families at Work (2006), Hornsby Child Care Planning Review

North Sydney Council (2002), North Sydney Development Control Plan 2002, Section 12.1 Child Care Centres

NSW Cancer Council and NSW Department of Health (2005). Shade for child care services. Sydney, 1999. 2005 Revised Edition

The Office of Children and Young People (2002), Families First, A Support Network for Families Raising Children. http://203.147.192.57/uploads/498bb892-39db-4a37-ab95-9f04da202f991.pdf, accessed 25 May 2005

Parramatta City Council (2001), Parramatta Social Plan 2001/2002 to 2004/2005

Penrith City Council (1998), Penrith Development Control Plan Child Care

Queensland Government (undated), Queensland Child Care Strategic Plan 2000 – 2005

Queensland Government (undated), Queensland Child Care Industry Plan 2002 – 2005

Queensland Government (2004), Queensland Development Code: Child Care Centre

Rockdale City Council (2004), Development Control Plan No. 31 Child Care Centres

Page 63

http://203.147.192.57/uploads/498bb892-39db-4a37-ab95-9f04da202f991.pdf

http://203.147.192.57/uploads/498bb892-39db-4a37-ab95-9f04da202f991.pdf


Ryde City Council (1998), Child Care Centres Development Control Plan

Ryde City Council (2002), Urban Housing Development Control Plan

Shellharbour City Council (1999), Childcare Centre Guidelines

Social Policy Research Centre (2004), Impact of Staff Ratios on Under 2 Year Olds in Children’s Services, prepared for the National Association of Community Based Children’s Services (NSW), Early Childhood Australia (NSW), Local Government Children’s Services Association (NSW) and Community Child Care Co-Operative (NSW), September 2004

Strathfield Municipal Council (1999), Development Control Plan No. 18 Child Care Centres

Sutherland LGA Council (2001), Development Control Plan Child Care Centres (edition 3)

Tunstill, J., Meadows, P., Allnock, A., Akhurst, S., Chrysanthou, J., Garbers, C., Morley, A., van de Velde, T. (2005), Implementing Sure Start local programmes: An in-depth study. http://www.surestart.gov.uk/_doc/P0001450.pdf, accessed 4 November 2006

Walsh, P. and NSW Department of Community Services (1998), Best Practice Guidelines in Early Childhood Physical Environments

Walsh, P. and NSW Department of Community Services (1997), Furniture and Play Equipment Checklist for a New Child Care Centre in New South Wales

Warringah Council (undated), Guidelines for Child Care Centres

Waverley Council (2004), Development Control Plan No. 5 Child Care Centre

Western Australian Planning Commission (2005), Child-care Centres. Planning Bulletin No. 72. www.wapc.wa.gov.au

Wollongong City Council (2006), Wollongong City Child Care Centres Development Control Plan 2006

Page 64

http://www.surestart.gov.uk/_doc/P0001450.pdf

http://www.wapc.wa.gov.au/

Appendix A

Children’s Services in Parramatta –

List and Map

Childcare centres in Parramatta City Council Local Government Area Service name Phone

number Address Post

code Licensed

places Under 2 2-5/6 Service type

ABC DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING CENTRE

02 9631 4031

39 Reynolds Street Toongabbie

2146 29 - 29 Long day care

ABC DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING CENTRE

02 9637 3050

23 Montrose Avenue Merrylands


ABC DEVELOPMENT LEARNING CENTRE

02 9890 8292

8 Isabella Street North Parramatta

2151 29 10 19 Long day care

ABC DEVELOPMENT LEARNING CENTRE

02 9897 1146

38 Eleanor Street Rosehill


ACTIVE KIDS PRESCHOOL AND LONG DAY CARE

02 9858 5703

382 Kissing Point Road Ermington


ALFRED STREET LONG DAY CARE CENTRE

02 9637 2082

20-22 Alfred Street Granville


ANGEL BABIES

02 9896 4137

68 Thomas Street Parramatta


ANGEL COTTAGE LONG DAY CARE CENTRE

02 9890 1463

1 Gore Street Parramatta


ARDILL FAMILY CENTRE 02 9630 5293

84-86 Ross Street Parramatta


BINALONG COTTAGE KINDERGARTEN

02 9631 3174

24 Binalong Road Wentworthville


BOUNTIFUL EARLY LEARNING CENTRE

02 9631 2449


2146 30 - 30

Long day care

CARLINGFORD KINDERGARTEN CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

02 9858 2232

4 Maismonde Place Carlingford


CHILDHOOD FRIENDS PARRAMATTA

02 9630 0665

2-4 Villiers Street Parramatta


DRAFT Parramatta LGA childcare centres October 2006 1

Service name Phone number

Address Post code

Licensed places

Under 2 2-5/6 Service type

CLOVEL CHILD CARE AND EARLY LEARNING CENTRE

02 9649 6687

2 Harris Road Wentworthville


CLOVEL CHILD CARE AND EARLY LEARNING CENTRE

02 9649 6687

39-41 Wright Street Granville


CLOVEL COTTAGE NURSERY

02 9649 6687

69 Lisgar Street Merrylands


CLOVEL DAY NURSERY 02 9649 6687

69 Lisgar Stret Merrylands


COTTAGE PRESCHOOL

02 9637 7529

8 Factory Street Granville

2142 18 - 18 Pre-school

DUNDAS LONG DAY CARE CENTRE

02 9684 6715

79 Calder Close Rydalmere


ERMINGTON POSSUM PATCH LONG DAY CARE CENTRE

02 9684 4471

12 Bartlett Street Ermington


ERMINGTON RAINBOW COTTAGE

02 9638 3607

20 MaCartney Street Ermington


ERMINGTON UNITING CHURCH PRE-SCHOOL

02 9684 1696

30 Griffiths Street Ermington

2115 26 - - Pre-school

ERMINGTON WESTFIELD OCCASIONAL LONG DAY CARE

02 9635 8113

Shop 5078B Level 5 Westfield Shoppingtown Parramatta

2150 28 5 23 Occasional care

FIGTREE CHILDREN’S COTTAGE

02 9638 4324

34A Atkins Road Ermington


FRANCES FISK LONG DAY CARE CENTRE

02 9682 6342

64 The Avenue Granville


GLENMARK PRESCHOOL KINDERGARTEN

02 9637 9468

17 Mary Street Granville

2142 40 - 40 Pre-school



Address Post code

Licensed places


GOLDEN ROSE LONG DAY CARE CENTRE

02 9637 3834

22-24 Waratah Street Granville


GRANVILLE TAFE CHILDREN’S CENTRE

02 9682 0389

63 Elizabeth Street Granville


ISABEL PULSFORD MEMORIAL PRESCHOOL

02 9876 4420

48 Bridge Street Epping

2121 25 - 25 Pre-school

JUBILEE PARK LONG DAY CARE CENTRE

02 9633 4468

Jubilee Lane (off Marion Street) Harris Park


JUST FOR KIDS PRESCHOOL/LONG DAY CARE CENTRE

02 9897 2066

63-65 Blaxcell Street Granville


KIDZ PRINCE PRESCHOOL

02 9876 5766

55 Boronia Avenue Epping


KOALA LANE LONG DAY CARE CENTRE

02 9871 5503

25 Wilkinson Lane Telopea

2117 39 14 25

Long day care

KU RYDALMERE PRESCHOOL

02 9638 5075

89-91 Park Road Rydalmere

2116 25 - 25 Pre-school

LAUGHING CLOWNS EARLY LEARNING CENTRE

02 9874 7745

213 Marsden Road Carlingford


LITTLE ANGEL’S KINDERGARTEN

02 9897 0056

29 Prospect Street Rosehill


LITTLE KIDS PLACE LONG DAY CARE CENTRE

02 9636 5882

30 Bulli Road Toongabbie


LITTLE TREASURES PRE-SCHOOL

02 9871 5684


2118 29 - 29 Pre-school

MALDON KINDERGARTEN TOONGABBIE

02 9631 0953

3 Reynolds Street Toongabbie




Address Post code

Licensed places


MIIDSON ROAD CHILDCARE CENTRE

02 9868 7787

87 Chesterfield Road Epping


MISS HELENAS PLACE

02 9613 0880

101 Wigram Street Harris Park

2150 19 - 3-5 Long day care

NORTHMEAD REDBANK CHILDREN’S CENTRE

02 9630 6411

Arthur Phillip Park, Redbank Road Northmead


PALM LONG DAY CARE CENTRE

02 9637 2828

60A the Avenue Granville


PARRAMATTA CITY PRE-SCHOOL AND LONG DAY CARE CENTRE

02 9630 4366

198-200 Pennant Street North Parramatta


PETERS PLAYHOUSE EARLY LEARNING CENTRE AND KINDERGARTEN

02 9682 5200

89 Good Street Granville

2142 49 8

41 Long day care

PLATYPUS PRESCHOOL

02 9638 1788

9 Lambert Avenue Ermington


POSSUMS PLACE BABY CENTRE

02 9688 1331

5 Short Street Wentworthville


POSSUMS PLACE KINDERGARTEN

02 9688 1618

31 Railway Street Wentworthville


ROSEHILL CHILD CARE CENTRE

02 9635 8672

103 Hassall Street Parramatta


ROSEHILL PUBLIC SCHOOL PRESCHOOL

02 9637 2202

Prospect Street Granville

2142 40 - 40 Pre-school

ROWLEY KINDERGARTEN

02 9632 6182

7 Rowley Street Guildford


RYDALMERE EAST 02 41 Spurway Street 2115 20 - 20 Pre-school



Address Post code

Licensed places


PRESCHOOL

9638 2250 Ermington

RYDALMERE PUBLIC SCHOOL PRESCHOOL

02 9638 1568

397 Victoria Rd Rydalmere

2116 40 - 40 Pre-school

SOPHIE’S COTTAGE

02 9873 4870

9 Sophie Street Dundas


TINY SCHOLARS

02 9638 5559

4 Massie Street Ermington


TOONGABBIE PRESCHOOL 02 9631 8639



TRALEE GARDENS EARLY LEARNING CENTRE

02 9688 3687

125 Wentworth Ave Wentworthville


TUMBLE TURN KIDZ EARLY LEARNING CENTRE

02 9684 6820

38a River Road Ermington


WARATAH MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL

02 9638 5242

Cnr Sturt Street and Evans Road Telopea

2117 29 - 29 Pre-school

WENTWORTHVILLE PRESCHOOL

02 9636 8461

26 Water Street Wentworthville

2145 25 - 25 Pre-school

WESTMEADOW CHILD CARE CENTRE

02 9635 5499

Grounds of Westmead Hospital Redbank Road Westmead


Y KIDS 02 9635 1791

29 Campbell Street Parramatta


2353

394

1959


Family Day Care Providers Name Suburbs covered Number of

providers Number of

places BAULKHAM HILLS FAMILY DAY CARE

Baulkham Hills

Nil

Nil

EASTWOOD FAMILY DAY CARE Eastwood, Epping, Carlingford

6 30

PARRAMATTA FAMILY DAY CARE

Granville, Guildford, Harris Park, Merrylands, North Parramatta, Northmead, Pendle Hill, Rosehill, Toongabbie, Wentworthville, Westmead, Winston Hills

42 210

TELOPEA FAMILY DAY CARE

Carlingford, Dundas, Ermington, Rydalmere 10 50

58

290


Appendix B

Resident Survey

Your Reference: Our Reference: F2006/00296 Contact: F. Roberts Telephone: 9806 5710 Fax: 9806 5929 [address] 23 October 2006 Dear Ms. X Parramatta Council wants your ideas and comments on child care centres in residential neighbourhoods Parramatta City Council is currently preparing a Development Control Plan (DCP) relating to child care centres. One of the aims of the DCP will be to ensure that new or enlarged child care centres do not unreasonably impact upon surrounding residents. The DCP will be used by Council to assess development applications for new child care centres or the expansion of existing centres. Council is seeking information from yourself and several of your neighbours regarding what it is like to live near a child care centre and the impacts that such a business has on your residential amenity. In this regard, Council is requesting that a member of your household complete the attached survey form. All responses are confidential and no information from individual survey responses will be provided to the centre or to other third parties. The survey is voluntary and you are under no obligation to complete it. However, to encourage the return of the survey, Council will make a charitable donation of $5.00 for every survey returned. You can nominate your preferred charity on the survey form from three options being either the Children’s Hospital at Westmead, NRMA CareFlight or UnitingCare Burnside. To enable your comments to be considered, please make sure that the survey form is completed and posted to Council in the Reply Paid envelope attached by 10 November, 2006. If you have questions about the survey or want help in completing it, please contact Council’s Project Officer, Mrs Felicity Roberts on 9806 5710. Yours sincerely

Sue Stewart Acting Manager, Land Use and Transport Planning

G:\Docs\Land Use and Transport Planning\LUTP Projects\Child Care Centres\Resident survey - covering letter.doc

Resident survey on CHILD CARE CENTRES As a resident living near a child care centre, we would like to hear your views on thecare centre known as (Insert Centre name and address). Council values your opinions and comments. All responses are confidential ainformation from individual survey responses will be provided to third parties.have questions about the survey or want help in completing it, please contactCouncil’s Project Officer, Mrs Felicity Roberts on 9806 5710. Please completereturn the survey in the Reply Paid envelope attached by 10 November, 2006. you for taking the time to help us deliver better services for residents. 1. Did the child care centre located at (Insert Centre address) open before or aft

moved to your current address? If before, go to Question 5.

Before After 2. Prior to the child care centre being approved and operating, were you concer

the possible impacts that the proposed child care centre would have on your property? (Do not answer this question if you moved to your current address after the childcommenced operation)

Yes No

3. If yes, what impacts were you most concerned about? (Do not answer this questio

moved to your current address after the child care centre commenced operation)

Noise from traffic, car doors Noise from children playing Excessive traffic in street Car parking in street Road safety problems Reduced property values Centre building not fitting in with neighbourhood character or streetsca Loss of privacy Overshadowing caused by the development Other, please specify ________________________________

4. Now that the child care centre is operating do you consider there are now any

impacts being caused by the operation of the centre?

Yes No

1

child

nd no If you and Thank

er you

ned about lifestyle or care centre

n if you

pe

negative

5. Please rate the significance of the impacts that have been or are being generated by

the operation of the centre on you or your family. 1

Significantimpact

2 Some impact

3 Little or

no impact

4 Not sure if there’s an impact

Noise from traffic, car doors

Noise from children playing

Excessive traffic in street

Cars parking in street

Road safety problems

Reduced property values

Centre building not fitting in with neighbourhood character or streetscape

Loss of privacy

Overshadowing caused by the development

Other, please specify _____________________________

6. Overall, how would you rate the child care centre’s impact on the quality of your neighbourhood.

Positive impact Negative impact Neutral impact

7. Do you have any other comments on child care centres in your area, or how the

Council should regulate their design and location?

………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………..…

………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………..

2

8. Please provide your address? Please note that we require your address to compare responses according to the individual centres surveyed. The survey is strictly confidential and no information from individual survey responses will be provided to third parties.

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

_____________________________________________________________________ DONATION For every survey returned, Council will donate $5.00 to either the Children’s Hospital at Westmead, NRMA CareFlight or UnitingCare Burnside. If you would like Council to make a donation, please tick ONE of the following boxes:

The Children’s Hospital at Westmead

NRMA CareFlight

UnitingCare Burnside

3

Resident survey of childcare centres Parramatta City Council Summary A survey of residences that neighbour five 5 childcare centres built in the past five years was completed to rate the level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction neighbours have with the operation of the childcare centre. The survey focussed on testing perceived (pre-DA) and actual (post-DA) amenity impacts of the childcare centre. The survey was sent to 40 residential premises. Council received seventeen surveys by the closing date 15 November 2006. Details of the childcare centres the subject of the survey and number of surveys returned are detailed below. Table 1 Childcare centres subject of survey

Centre name Address Surveys returned

Type Hours Total places

Under 2

2-5

Bountiful Early Learning Centre


4 LDC/ private

7am to 6.00pm

30 - 30

Little Treasures Pre-school


5 PS/ private

8am to 4.00pm

29 - 29

Angel Babies

68 Thomas Street Parramatta

2 LDC/ private

7.30am to 6pm

15 - 15

Toongabbie Preschool


2 LDC/ private

7.30 am to 6pm

57 18 39

Rowley Kindergarten

7 Rowley Road Guildford

4 LDC/ private

7am to 6pm 29 - 29

40 surveys were sent to residents and 17 surveys were returned. The main impacts residents were most concerned about prior to the centre operating were: • noise from children playing, • excessive traffic in street, • reduced property values, and • loss of privacy. These same impacts were identified as most significant by residents after the centre began operation. Impacts that were considered the least significant were: • overshadowing caused by development, and • centre building not fitting in with neighbourhood character or streetscape. The main comments provided by respondents related to noise, parking, and not locating centres in residential streets. In particular not locating more than one centre in any one street. Overall, 72% of respondents rated the impacts of the centre as negative, and 12% as positive.

1 Outcomes of Parramatta City Council childcare survey

Cred Community Planning

Detailed results Question 1 A total of 15 respondents (or 88%) were living in their premises prior to the childcare centre being built. Question 2 Eight of those 15 residents (or 53%) responded that prior to the childcare centre being approved and operating, they were concerned about the impacts it would have on their lifestyle and/or property. A further five (or 33%) were not concerned and three (20%) did not respond. Question 3 Of those 15 who were concerned the following impacts were of greatest concern, prior to the childcare centre operating: • noise from children playing, • excessive traffic in street, • reduced property values, and • loss of privacy. Table 2 Impacts of greatest concern, prior to childcare centre being built

Impacts most concerned about Results Noise from traffic, car doors 33% (5) Noise from children playing 53% (8) Excessive traffic in street 53% (8) Car parking in street 47% (7) Road safety problems 33% (5) Reduced property values 40% (6) Centre building not fitting in with neighbourhood character of streetscape

33% (5)

Loss of privacy 40% (6) Overshadowing caused by the development 7% (1) Other comments • Visibility of children from centre

• Reduced quality of life Question 4 Now that the childcare centre is operating eleven of the fifteen residents (or 73%) consider there are negative impacts being caused by the operation of the centre, four do not consider there are any negative impacts, and two (26%) did not respond. Question 5 All respondents were asked to rate the significance of the impacts that have been or are being generated by the operation of the centre. All 17 responded completed this section. The impacts identified as most significant were: • reduced property values, • car parking in street, • noise from children playing, and • excessive traffic in street. These impacts were similar to those identified in Question 3, concerns prior to the centre being built. Impacts that were considered the least significant were:



• Overshadowing caused by development • Centre building not fitting in with neighbourhood character or streetscape. Table 3 Rating of significance of impact, after centre operating

Significant impact

Some impact

Little/no impact

Not sure

Noise from traffic 8 (48%) 2 (12%) 5 (30%) 2 (12%) Noise from children playing 9 (52%) 4 (24%) 3 (18%) 1 (6%) Excessive traffic in street 7 (42%) 3 (18%) 6 (36%) 1 (6%) Car parking in street 9 (54%) 2 (12%) 4 (24%) 2 (12%) Road safety problems 8 (48%) 1 (6%) 5 (20%) 2 (12%) Reduced property values 11 (66%) 0 1 (6%) 5 (30%) Centre building not fitting in with neighbourhood character or streetscape

6 (36%) 3 (18%) 6 (36%) 2 (12%)

Loss of privacy 6 (36%) 2 (12%) 7 (42%) 1 (6%) Overshadowing caused by the development.

1 (6%) 4 (24%) 3 (18%) 9 (54%)

Question 6 Overall, the childcare centre’s impact on quality of the respondent’s neighbourhood was mostly rated as negative (72%). Impact Response Positive 2 (12%) Negative 12 (72%) Neutral 3 (18%)

Question 7 Respondents were asked to provide comments on other impacts that the childcare centre has on them. The main impacts commented on related to noise, parking, and not locating more than one centre in a residential street. • Childcare centres are businesses and should not be located in residential streets. • Childcare centres should be located on school grounds. • Centres are too noisy and not managed properly. • House break-ins and stealing has increased since the centre has opened. • Centres should be provided in areas of greatest demand. Not in older streets with few children. • Traffic has increased in a formerly quiet street. The cars are large 4WDrives exceeding the

speed limit. • There is lots of shouting and screaming from the centres, particularly on Fridays when there

are different staff on. Can never sleep-in in the mornings after 8am. • Childcare centres are necessary and should be given every community support. • Should not be in residential area. Should be in school grounds • Play equipment/centre turrets, are close to back fence where children can be seen and hear.

Council did not advise us of this redevelopment. • Structures in the playground are too high for a residential street. • Two centres next to each other in a residential street, should not be permitted (Angel Babies). • Centres need to have proper car parking. The noise in unbearable (3 houses make up one

childcare centre – Angel Babies). Need high sound barriers and more highly trained staff to manage children better.

• Adequate drop-off and pick-up points are needed and provision for staff parking. • Management are not cooperative with neighbours. • There are too many childcare centres too close together. They also should not be located on

busy roads or intersections.



Appendix C

Comparison of Other Councils’ Planning Controls

PARRAMATTA CHILD CARE CENTRES PLANNING STUDY

Review of other Councils’ approaches Auburn

Includes a range of planning objectives

Includes a ‘steps to consent’ section

Includes definitions of the different types of care

Discourages child care centres from being located within 200m mobile phone towers, transmission lines and brothels

Brings in more of the requirements discussed in the Regulation

Refers to “Best Practice Guidelines in Early Childhood Physical Environments” developed by DoCS.

Brings in some best practice guidelines regarding design and layout, e.g:

Each room should have at least two (2) windows with sills no higher than 500millimetres above the floor.

A Child Care Centre must have sleep or rest areas and facilities located in a low noise section of the building eg, away from verandahs.

At least 50 per cent of the outdoor area must be shaded to provide protection from direct sunlight. (Shade may be provided either by natural or built form – eg shade cloth).

Requires double glaze windows where child care centre interfaces with significant noise sources (e.g. main roads)

Brings in requirement in Regulation that swimming pools are not permitted

Parking: 1 per 4 children, or 1 per 35m2 floor space, whichever the greater

Pathways that link directly to the main entry of the building from the periphery of the car park are to be provided to ensure safe access for children and parents.

Parking for people with a disability is to be provided at the rate of one (1) space per 10 spaces. If the car parking required is less than 10 then at least one (1) space must be provided.

Clarifies the consent arrangements for home based and family day care

Provides the following land use philosophy for location of centres:

Bankstown


Clarifies the planning roles of State and local government


Encourages child care centres to locate in areas with adequate on street car parking

Centre based child care centres prohibited on land that adjoins a State Road (refer to Appendix 1); or is in a cul-de-sac street; or is in a street where the carriageway between kerbs is less than 10 metres in width

Max number of children limited to 40

Requires minimum frontages for child care centres with less/more than 29 children

Converted dwelling houses used for centre based child care centres cannot accommodate more than 29 children

Purpose built centres are allowed but only provided the external building design gives the appearance of a dwelling house

Centre based child care centres in non residential zones must be located either on the ground or first level of a building; facilities for 0-2 year olds must be located on the ground floor only

Requirement that noise attenuation report must be submitted

Play area interfaces:

A development must ensure the siting of an outdoor area (such as a balcony or deck) and an outdoor play area avoids:

a) a living area or bedroom of an adjoining dwelling;

b) a road and driveway that may have noise or a possible pollution impact on children;

c) any other potential noise or pollution source; and

d) any potential traffic hazard locations where an out-of-control vehicle may injure children.

Private open space for a dwelling standard: 80m2

Landscaping for outdoor play areas includes prohibiting noxious or hazardous plants:

a) plants known to produce toxins;

b) plants with high allergen properties;

c) plants with profuse scented flowers or known to attract high numbers of bees, spiders, and insects;

d) plants with thorns or spiky foliage and branches; and

e) any weed or potential weed species.

Restricts retaining walls in outdoor play areas to 400mm high

Parking requirement:

1 car space per staff member (stack parking is permitted) plus

1 car space per 8 children (stack parking is not permitted) plus

2 additional car spaces for the exclusive use of any associated residence

Burwood


Refers to and incorporates some of the items included in “Best Practice Guidelines in Early Childhood Physical Environments” developed by DoCS

Has a checklist for DA requirements and matters to be addressed in a site analysis

Refers to other documents and standards relevant to designing a child care centre

Includes a steps to consent process

Refers to the DoCS licensing process

Maximum number of places for a child care centre in a 2a zone is 29. No limit on higher density and non residential zones

Has a sliding scale for minimum site areas depending on the number of child care places. For example, in the 2b and 2c zones:

Up to 15 children: 600 square metres

16- 29 children: 935 square metres

30 - 50 children: 1400 square metres

Greater than 50 children: 1800 square metres

Parking required at the rate of 1 space per 4 children plus 1 space per staff member. Stacked parking may be permissible for staff spaces

Acoustic standards reference the Industrial Noise Manual:

The LAeq(15 minute) noise level emitted from the site (including playground activity noise and indoor activity noise) shall not exceed the Rating Background Level (the “RBL”) by more than 5dBA (“background level + 5dBA”) at the assessment location.

Hours of operation limited to 7am to 6.30pm Mondays to Fridays for child care centre in residential areas

Canterbury


Includes a ‘steps to consent’ section; checklist


Refers to and incorporates many of the items included in “Best Practice Guidelines in Early Childhood Physical Environments” developed by DoCS. Council adopts its own Guidelines that reflect the contents of the best practice document.

Encourages 0-2 year olds places through possible variation of site requirements and car parking when a proportion of 0-2 year old places are provided

Site criteria:

corner sites to allow for a long frontage for setting down and picking up of children and to allow less interference with the on street parking associated with adjoining residences;

not favoured on major roads or within 30 metres of a major road;

sites, other than corner sites, will be considered where they have a minimum width of 20 metres;

Council will consider sites less than 20 metres wide only where the child care centre allocates a minimum of 25% of the places to 0 - 2 year olds;

A maximum of one child care centre per street is preferred, however, this would depend on the nature and length of the street;

Not on a cul-de-sac, or on ‘extremely quiet streets’

Max no of places: 40

A range of criteria for landscaping and outdoor play space. Seeks to implement optimal outdoor space requirements of 10m2 per child, rather than 7m2 as per Regulation.

Refers to the other approvals/requirements that relate to child care centres (e.g. BCA)

Parking: 1 space per 2 employees, customer parking on street where it is safe to provide; Council will consider reducing car parking requirements if 25% target for 0-2 year olds is met Gosford



Applies a maximum gradient of 1 in 20 and minimum side setback of 3 metres; minimum front setback for rural areas 30m

Requires letter to be submitted from DoCS with the application stating that there is no objection in principle to the proposal

Not permitted on battle axe allotments, in culs-de-sac or opposite major intersections

Preferred locations include sites adjacent to public reserves, commercial sites, schools or other non-residential uses. Sites located in the general vicinity of primary schools are encouraged.

Direct vehicular access to arterial, sub arterial, state or regional roads will not be permitted.

Separate entry and exit driveways shall be provided for centres which are located on a collector road; or cater for ten (10) or more children; or are located on sites where Council determines the requirement is necessary to ensure the safety of pedestrians, carers, staff and others visiting the centre.

Parking: 1 space per 6 children and 1 space per staff member present at any one time

Noise criteria: 5dBA above background level

Criteria for the front setback:

The outdoor play area is not to be located in the front building setback unless the applicant clearly demonstrates in the development application that the visual appearance of the streetscape will not be compromised, appropriate landscape treatment is to be provided.

Provisions relating to accessibility include:

(a) hard paved surfaces leading from the building to an outside play environment should continue partly inside the play area to allow children with mobility aids to participate with outdoor activities;

(b) design of the car park area should incorporate kerb cuts to eliminate the barrier for parents with prams and children in wheelchairs or on crutches; and

(c) pathways with extra width (1200 to 1500 millimetres) and grades no steeper than 1:12 or 8% to allow easy circulation throughout the site.

Streetscape controls include ensuring the design of buildings relate to the slope (maximum 1 in 20) of the land to minimise earthworks and disturbance to the land (cut and fill); in established streetscapes, building design to be consistent with the dominant design themes within the immediate area; materials and finishes of the development and planting along the street frontage should complement adjoining development.

Lists child care centre requirements contained in the BCA Holroyd





Requires a separation of 100m between a child care centre and high voltage power lines of 33 kilovolts or more. ‘This separation is required in light of research that demonstrates an association between exposure to power frequency electromagnetic fields and an increased incidence of childhood leukaemia and other cancers (ref: Fews A. P, Henshaw D. L, Keitch P. A, Close J. J, and Wilding R. J. “Increased exposure to pollutant aerosols under high voltage transmission lines”, Int J Radiat Biol, 1999, vol. 75, pp. 1505-1521).

Require with application a shade audit conforming with the recommendations and example contained in the NSW Cancer Council’s and NSW Health Department’s shade guidelines (Greenwood JS, Soulos GP, Thomas ND. Under cover: Guidelines for shade planning and design. NSW Cancer Council and NSW Health Department Sydney, 1998.)

Recommended that intending applicants obtain a copy of the Introductory Package for Child Care Facilities from Council’s Manager Children’s Services and arrange to consult with Council’s Development Control Unit (DCU) prior to the preparation and submission of a formal application for development consent

Max FSR in residential areas 0.5:1

Max no. of places in a child care centre: 45

Requires letter of general support from DoCS with application

Child care centres must ‘be a safe distance from hazardous industries, LP gas sites, mobile telephone base stations and towers, and safe from any other environmental health hazards, such as high lead levels, chemical spraying in rural areas, or proximity to cooling tower drift in high rise building areas’.

Child care centres not to be located on any road which in Council’s opinion is unsuitable for a child care centre (DCP provides a list of arterial and sub arterial roads that are considered unsuitable, and a list of local and collector roads that are considered likely to be unsuitable). Also not favoured where child care centre ‘would be contrary to the environmental capacity of the street’. All DAs require a traffic and parking report.

Parking: 1 space per employee, 1 space per 10 children, 1 space per residence. Consideration may be given to reducing on site requirements for short stay parent and visitor parking only, if convenient and safe on-street parking is otherwise available.

Separate entry and exit driveways to the parking area required where safe on street parking conditions do not exist

Noise criteria for internal areas of the child care centre: 40dB(A) (Leq 24)

A range of shade criteria

A range of landscaping criteria

A range of drainage requirements, engineering and pavement requirements

Access to comply with AS1428

Fire safety and evacuation plan required with DA

Hornsby

Controls for child care centres addressed in a ‘Community Uses DCP’

Identifies site selection criteria for child care centres including:

corner sites, sites adjacent to non residential areas

where on site drop-off and pick-up can be catered for

sites with safe vehicular access (no on main road)

sites forming part of an established community facility or church

sites in close proximity to parkland

sites within walking distance of a railway station or employment centre

sites close to large populations of children aged 0-4 years

sites with the capability for extensive play areas

Maximum number of child care places limited to 50 for centres in residential areas, of which no more than 30 to be in the 2 years and over age group

Site coverage no to exceed 40% and floor space ratio not to exceed 0.4:1 in low density residential areas

Parking to be provided at the rate of 1 space per 4 children, and parking in the front setback to be setback at least 5m from the front boundary

Indoor and outdoor unencumbered space to comply with the requirements of the Regulation

Shading of outdoor areas to comply with the NSW Cancer Council requirements

Acoustic standard: no more than 5dBA above ambient background noise level

Requirement to prepare a waste management plan as part of the development application

Ku-ring-gai


Clarifies the consent arrangements for home based and family day care




Discourages child care centres from being located within 200m of mobile phone towers, transmission lines + auto related uses and hazardous industries

Discourages child care centres from being located within 100m of major roadways

Matters for consideration in residential areas:

Applications should consider the layout of adjoining residential properties, giving extensive consideration to private open space, bedrooms, living rooms and other sensitive areas, by undertaking provisions to minimise potential impacts through:

- the design and layout of the proposed Child Care Centre,

- Fencing and Screen Planting,

- the position of doors and windows of indoor play spaces,

- the relationship between outdoor play spaces and these sensitive areas,

- the location of play equipment within outdoor play spaces, and,

- the insulation of external noise sources, such as air conditioners.

Preferred locations:

- Be located on a corner site or have street a frontage of more than 20 metres

- Share two (2) or less common boundaries with surrounding properties zoned for residential purposes.

- Have frontages to parks or other open space.

– Be located within a range of local shopping facilities, public transport, and other community facilities.

Parking: 1 space per 4 children, including at least 1 disabled space

Max no of children: child care centres with more than 50 places in residential areas are ‘generally not encouraged by council’; equivalent figure for non residential areas is 60 places

Refers to “Best Practice Guidelines in Early Childhood Physical Environments” developed by DoCS, for example:

Includes many best practice design criteria in relation to temperature, lighting, layout of spaces, transition areas, etc

Includes many best practice design criteria in relation to outdoor play spaces

Landscaping for outdoor play areas includes prohibiting noxious or hazardous plants

Requires development in residential areas to ‘project the image of a residential dwelling’

Includes specific requirements for dual use (residential/child care centre) facilities

Includes information on how proposals involving heritage items or non residential properties will be assessed, including prospects for variations

Liverpool






Refers to best practice standards in facilities and layout

Council encourages ‘an even distribution of small child care centres in residential areas’: Max no. of children in residential zones: 40

Bulk, height and scale of child care centres not to be inconsistent with existing surrounding residential development

child care centres not permitted in cul-de-sacs or arterial roads or on battle axe allotments; nor permitted adjacent to industrial areas or railway lines

In rural areas child care centres not permitted adjacent to extractive industries; intensive agriculture; agricultural spraying activities; waste depots

Preferred site criteria for child care centres:

In the vicinity of primary schools, employment areas, recreation areas

Within the grounds of existing community facilities

Near local services and public transport

On sites with minimal common boundaries

On sites where overshadowing from adjoining development is minimal

Further assessment of cumulative impacts required for child care centres within 100m of another child care centre.

Requirements relating to exposure to noise, contaminated land etc

Child care centres required minimum frontage of 20m; narrower blocks allowed where there is a conversion of a dwelling house and adequate areas for parking, building and outdoor play areas are provided

Child care centres to be located on roads with a minimum sealed road width of 6.5m

Corner sites: minimum 6m setback of driveway from corner boundary

Front building setback to be within 25% of adjoining setbacks: minimum 20m in rural areas

Minimum 3m landscaped setback at the front

Car park and access ways not to visually dominate the external appearance of the development

Parking: 1 space per staff member; 1 space per 10 children; 1 space for any dwelling; including at least 1 disabled space; stack parking for staff permitted

Potential reduced parking requirements for sites fronting a road with a minimum 7.5m carriageway

Pedestrian access for the disabled/parents with prams is to be provided from the street to the building

Adaptability requirement: Any new buildings built as child care centres should be designed so as to be capable of reuse as dwelling houses

Fencing, solar access requirements

Maximum cut and fill requirements

Specific requirements for dual use facilities identified

Penrith





Brings in some best practice guidelines regarding design and layout and centre management

Does not support dwelling house conversions for child care centres > 15 places, such developments have to be purpose built

Minimum site frontage of 22m

Prefers locations near services, facilities and open space

Not permitted on designated roads, culs-de-sac, or ‘minor residential road where additional vehicles associated with the child care centre may create traffic conflict or an adverse impact on the amenity of the locality’

Not permitted on land within 85m of a service station, or on land (or adjacent land) containing a mobile phone tower or electricity easement

Parking: 1 per 4 children plus 1 per staff member dealing with ‘younger children’ or children with special needs

Parking area required to cater for emergency vehicles and delivery vehicles (vehicle size not specified)

Seeks to use fencing and walls to mitigate noise generated by outdoor play, rather than restricting the play

A range of criteria for sun shading

Minimum front boundary landscaped setback of 2m

Minimum requirements for attached dwelling include a private open space area of 6m X 4m

Includes separate requirements for OOSH centres added onto child care centres

For work based child care centres variations to controls will be considered, as the emphasis shifts to environmental quality and land use conflicts

Rockdale


Includes a ‘steps to consent’ section; and provides a summary of site/application requirements; also brings in site analysis criteria


Clarifies that in addition to new child care centres, modifications to centres require consent, including change of use of an existing building; extensions / alterations to existing centres; extensions of the hours of operation of existing centres; and increasing the number of children attending an existing Child Care Centre.




Brings in some best practice guidelines regarding design and layout

Primary site selection determinant is access to public transport, location in residential areas, employment areas and centres

Sites with minimal common boundaries preferred; noise criteria is 5dBA above background

Child care centres to cater for all early childhood age groups (although provisions to implement this are not clearly worded)

Design to be sympathetic to the residential streetscape, i.e. the building should look like a residential dwelling, compatible colours, materials and finishes, no more than 2 storeys and a max FSR of 0.5:1

Applicant required to do an on-street parking survey to assist in determining the optimum parking arrangement on site, reflected in the objective: To consider reduced on-site parking if convenient and safe on-street parking is available provided that the use of such parking does not adversely affect the amenity of the adjacent area.

Desire a one way drive through arrangement. Two 3m driveways separated by at least 7m are required for single frontage sites

Parking: 1 space per 20 children plus 1 space per 2 staff plus 1 space for dual use dwelling. Allowance may be made for allowance may be made for ‘on-street parking spaces at the rate of 1 space per 6m of site street frontage, which is clear of parking restrictions and driveways’. Stacked parking for staff permitted.

A range of access and parking considerations:

Privately provided minibus service encouraged to minimise parking need

Minimum front building setback 6m, or within 1m of the dominant building line

Minimum rear boundary 3m, variable side setback provisions

Child care centres encouraged on corner sites; otherwise minimum frontage requirement of 15m

Not permitted on State roads; in other heavily trafficked streets child care centres are expected to provide traffic calming devices

Child Care Centres should be located so as to minimise the possible adverse health effects to children of electromagnetic radiation emitted from telecommunication facilities (i.e. A Child Care Centre should be located a minimum of 100 metres from high voltage transmission lines, pylons and electrical substations).

Includes pedestrian access criteria

Disability access criteria includes access to the main entrance from the street alignment

A range of landscaping and outdoor space design requirements and criteria; emphasis on usability and safety for the children

Specific requirements for dual use facilities; private open space minimum dimension 6m and minimum area of 30m2; min 1 parking space; minimum sunlight access to the private open space

Includes a checklist of DoCS requirements

Ryde






Refers to “Best Practice Guidelines in Early Childhood Physical Environments” developed by DoCS. Also suggests higher criteria for indoor and outdoor space (4.25 and 10 square metres respectively) to achieve a better development

DAs require supporting letter from DOCS

Identifies site analysis requirements

Site criteria includes:

Not on arterial or busy roads or at intersections, or on cul-de-sacs

Flat or gently sloping land

Min. 800m2 and min frontage of 17m

Close to public transport

With least number of common boundaries to residential dwellings

Adjacent to non residential land uses

Not adjoining villas, town houses or flats

Requires separate ingress and egress, with a 9m separation between driveways

Stack parking for staff permitted, at least one disabled space

Parking: 1 space per 8 children, with potential reductions if on street parking can be safely used

Sites within 125m of main roads require an air and soil test

All doors and windows to be screened to minimise the risk of mosquito borne diseases

Acoustic privacy and visual privacy criteria

Child care centres to meet the same standards as dwelling houses: max FSR of 0.5:1, no more than 2 storeys

A range of landscaping criteria, for example landscape plan to include shrubs and trees which offer a range of textures, colours and scents for the children's learning experience.

Australian flowering trees, shrubs, and fruit trees offer children the opportunity to observe a variety of native birds and insects whilst they feed. Plants which are toxic, produce small nuts, are allergy producing, or otherwise unsafe must not be grown on the site.

Disabled access: continuous path of travel from the street to the entrance and within all rooms plus other additional criteria

Dual use: dwellings to comply with the dwelling house DCP and no more than 15 children in a dual use child care centre; min private open space 25m2 and no living areas on the first floor

Provides guidance on the establishment of home based care, including consent and licensing requirements

Strathfield





Brings in some best practice guidelines regarding design and layout (shade guidelines)

Council requires letter of acceptance from DOCS before DA is lodged and approved

Clarifies consent requirements for enlargements


Example layout:

Council to be satisfied that the bulk, scale, height, character and external detailing of the development is compatible with the character of development within the vicinity, and is generally consistent and sympathetic with the existing streetscape character of the locality (in residential areas the building should look like a residential dwelling)

Child care centres not favoured on (or within 30m of) a classified road, on a cul-de-sac, adjacent to heavy industrial uses/service station, sites less than 1000m2, sites with existing swimming pools

Min frontage 25m (except corner sites), minimum side setback 4m, min front setback 9-12m

Min standards may be varied where an adaptation of an existing dwelling to a child care centre is proposed

Child care centres no closer than 300 metres to existing mobile phone towers or antennas or transmission line easements or other similar electromagnetic radiation sources

Parking: Car parking shall be provided at a rate of 1 space per employee (stack parking is permitted for staff parking) and 1 visitor space per 8 children or part thereof; Two (2) additional parking spaces are to be provided for any associated residence.

Landscaping, outdoor play, noise and fencing criteria

Sutherland







Clarifies consent needed for existing centre expansions (expansions involving child care centres on arterial roads will not be approved)

Not generally permitted within 125m of a major road (may be approved with favourable noise, air and soil tests), not permitted on culs-de-sac

Traffic study required where child care centre is within 100m of another child care centre

Not favoured in Industrial zones

Child care centres shall be no closer than 50m to mobile phone towers or antennas or transmission line easements or other similar electromagnetic radiation sources

Noise criteria 5dbA above background

Parking trade off issues:

Adequate car parking must be available so as to accommodate the peak parking demand of the Centre. All parking must afford safe access to the centre and should be provided on-site. However in residential areas particular care must be taken to ensure on-site parking does not result in excessive hardstand areas which detract from the overall streetscape. The residential

streetscape must be preserved. Where a suitable balance cannot be achieved between on-street parking, on-site parking and streetscape issues, then the number of children must be reduced accordingly.

Parking: 1 space per 4 children; consideration to reduced requirement where safe on-street parking is generally available; 1 additional space for the residence

Drive-through parking arrangement favoured

Max no. of children: 40

Dual use criteria includes min 50m2 private open space

A range of landscaping criteria

City of Sydney

Includes a range of planning objectives, but provides more of a focus on best practice:

The City of Sydney Child Care Centre Development Control Plan (DCP) seeks to encourage the provision of high quality child care and Child Care Centres based on best practice principles within the City of Sydney, and to meet the increasing need for Child Care Centres generally. It aims to ensure that Child Care Centres provide environments where children’s development is positively fostered; are functionally and economically viable; attractive and sympathetic to the streetscape; appropriate for the surrounding built, natural and social environments; and have a minimum adverse impact of surrounding areas.

Encourages child care centres in workplaces

Includes a ‘steps to consent’ section; describes when additional information is required to be submitted





Imposes a minimum percentage of 0-2 year old places in all new child care centres (33%)

Prefer child care centres to be located in close proximity to public transport; within workplaces; not adjacent to brothels or injecting rooms; not adjacent to classified roads or other major road; not in cul-de-sacs.

child care centres are to address environmental/health risks associated with the following:

(i) wind tunnels and downdraft created by high rise buildings;

(ii) pollution created by car and other vehicle fumes;

(iii) proximity to LPG tanks;

(iv) existing and potential on and off-site electromagnetic fields (50Hz and radio frequency fields 3KHz – 300GHz);

(v) contaminated land;

(vi) lead in painted surfaces, carpets, furnishings and roof void in existing buildings;

(vii) asbestos in existing buildings;

(viii) mould and mildew in existing buildings;

(ix) proximity to water cooling and water warming systems;

(x) proximity to noise sources;

(xi) proximity to odour (and other air pollutants) generating uses and sources; and

(xii) any other identified environmental health hazard or risk relevant to the site and/or existing buildings within the site.

Where a child care centre is to be sited within 300m of a tower or easement, a report is to be prepared

Benchmark criteria for the rate of child care provision in new development:

1 child care places per 1,450m² of commercial floor space

6 child care places per 100 people residential dwellings

Refers to other council documents relating to energy efficiency

A range of indoor and outdoor space criteria

Security and surveillance criteria included

A range of noise matters to be addressed in an acoustic report; in City of Sydney, noise abatement for users rather than neighbours is the key issue

Traffic report required for child care centres with more than 20 places

Emergency evacuation plan required meeting AS3745

Clarifies hours of operation

Includes a section containing criteria for child care centres situated above ground floor level

Waverley



Includes definitions of the different types of care (differentiates between nanny care and child care centres or home based care)





Includes requirements for home based services

Preferred site location criteria:

corner sites;

sites adjacent to existing open space;

sites which form part of an established church or community facility;

detached dwellings rather than semi-detached dwellings, dual occupancies or units within residential flat buildings;

sites where on-site setting down facilities for children are available;

sites close to public transport or within easy and safe walking distance of public transport.

Parking: 1 space per 2 staff plus a drop off area

Home based care requires Council consent

Wollongong


Clarifies the planning roles of State and local government and the approval/licensing process

Includes a steps to consent section

Clarifies that consent is required for proposals to enlarge or alter a child care centre or amend conditions of consent

Maximum number of child care places in a centre in a residential zone: 49

Identifies the need for cumulative impact assessment where the centre is within 100m of another centre

Sites which best satisfy the aims of the DCP including sites:

adjacent to open space

in the vicinity of primary schools and major employment areas

that are existing community facilities or churches

that are near shops, services and public transport

that avoid overshadowing on adjoining land

with a northerly aspect (for outdoor play spaces)

that are not sloping or steep

Includes comprehensive list of sites which may be potentially unsuitable


Refers to “Best Practice Guidelines in Early Childhood Physical Environments” developed by DoCS

Parking to be provided at the rate of 1 space per staff member present at any one time and 1 space for each 10 child care places or part thereof – a minimum of 3 spaces to have dimensions meeting disabled access requirements

A range of detailed controls are included in the DCP relating to outdoor areas, lighting, fencing and gates, landscaping, visual and acoustic privacy, access, safety and security, emergency evacuation, operations, work-based and dual use care.

parramatta child care centre planning report... · parramatta child care centre planning study...

Documents