Section 3.27 Development Control Plans A provision of a development control plan
7. Issues Raised in Submissions
The proposal was notified for 14 days and 24 submissions plus one petition containing 182 signatures were received.
The issues raised in the submissions are summarised below.
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
Traffic, Road Safety & Road Conditions
Maguires Rd is a narrow, unlit, poorly marked winding road that is unsafe and incapable of accommodating the traffic volumes proposed.
Pedestrian safety is also of concern as there are no defined footpaths, or kerb and gutters.
There is minimal on street parking available to accommodate any overflow from the development. Where will all the extra cars park on days such as Grandparents Day, Easter Parade Day,
Graduation Day etc?
The Traffic Report fails to adequately address the implications of the development.
The driveway entry to the site is located on a blind corner which will be dangerous for vehicles and pedestrians.
The proposal was reviewed by Council’s Traffic
Engineer who advised that the proposed development is expected to have minimal impacts on the wider
network.
Notwithstanding this, significant concerns are raised with the adverse impacts the proposed development will have as detailed in this report.
Insufficient information has been submitted to address these concerns and
demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed development.
LOCAL PLANNING PANEL MEETING 18 MAY, 2022 THE HILLS SHIRE
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
As a result, the application is not supported and refusal is recommended.
Character & Visual Impact
The development is completely out of character with surrounding development and the area in general.
The external façade and general design is not in keeping with, nor does it complement, the rural character of the area. There are other centres that exist in rural areas that have a more
responsive and complementary rural design.
The Statement of Environmental Effects states that the design is of a bulk and scale similar to that found in rural settings, no different to a winery or the scale of wool sheds. Maguires Rd has no such development, nor anything of a similar scale, therefore the building is not in character with development in the area.
The development, if approval is being considered, should be redesigned and significantly reduce child numbers.
The proposal is not considered to be site responsive, is not
considered to be in keeping with the character of the area, is considered to be an overdevelopment of the lot and is considered to result in adverse environmental impact as detailed in this report.
As a result, the proposed development is not supported and refusal is recommended.
Lack of Services & Compatible Uses
There is a lack of supporting amenities in the locality (e.g. Cafés, parks, petrol stations etc)
The comments made in the Statement of Environmental Effects that the site is well connected and easily accessible are incorrect.
There is no town water, sewer, footpaths or suitable roads to service the development.
Public transport is negligible. The nearest bus stop is 1.3kms away and the nearest train station 11kms away. As a result, 100% of staff and visitors will have to drive.
The applicant has not submitted sufficient
information to demonstrate that the proposed
development and all the services it requires are capable of being
accommodated on the site without adversely impacting the amenity of the area and the environment.
As a result, the proposed development is not supported and refusal is recommended.
Location & Site Selection
Unsuitable location for a development of this size
The site itself is incapable of accommodating this development.
There is no demand in this area for a centre for that many children. The centre would be better suited in the newly
developed Gables and Box Hill areas. There have been several other centres that have been able to gain approval in these suburbs.
Significant concerns are raised with the adverse impacts the proposed development will have as detailed in this report.
Insufficient information has been submitted to allay these concerns and
demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed development.
LOCAL PLANNING PANEL MEETING 18 MAY, 2022 THE HILLS SHIRE
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
There is an existing centre next to Maraylya Public School which is a more appropriate location as parents do not need to travel out of their way to use it. This centres location has not been as well considered.
As a result, the application is not supported and refusal is recommended.
Flooding
Maguires Rd is susceptible to flooding in parts which would cut off the centre at times of heavy rainfall.
While no direct concern is raised with flooding, for the reasons outlined in this report, the proposed development is not supported and refusal is recommended.
Noise & Right to Quiet Enjoyment
The development will generate a significant amount of noise that will significantly impact the quiet enjoyment of neighbours. It is impossible to minimise the noise from children playing.
In addition to operational noise, the noise of trucks etc servicing the development will also add to the noise generated.
The Acoustic Report limits children outside to 32 at a time. For a centre with 200 children in attendance, this is unrealistic,
unreasonable and will likely not be adhered to. It is not in the best interests of the children in attendance either.
In any child care centre, there will always be children accessing the outdoor play areas with the exception of rest time, meal time and inclement weather conditions. Young children also suffer separation anxiety and will often cry on and off for hours until they settle into a centre.
The Acoustic Report is inconclusive and does not take into
account the true operations involved in the daily running of a child care centre.
As detailed in Section 5 of this report, the Acoustic Report was reviewed and found to be erroneous and unable to be relied upon.
The reliance on constant supervision to ensure compliance with the noise levels will create an ongoing burden for the management of the facility and creates the possibility of non- compliance. The operational restrictions required are also considered to be impractical for a child care centre.
Insufficient information has been submitted to allay these concerns and
demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed development.
As a result, the proposed development is not supported and refusal is recommended.
Acoustic Report
Conclusion 5 in the acoustic report states that “noise estimated to be generated by activities within the outdoor activity area
associated with the proposed childcare centre is projected to have no negative or non-compliant impacts on surrounding buildings, activities and individuals”. Following review of the acoustic report, this reviewer disagrees with this statement.
Outdoor play is predicted to exceed the noise criteria at the
As detailed in Section 5 of this report, the Acoustic Report was reviewed and found to be erroneous and unable to be relied upon.
The reliance on constant supervision to ensure compliance with the noise levels will create an ongoing
LOCAL PLANNING PANEL MEETING 18 MAY, 2022 THE HILLS SHIRE
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
neighbouring residential receiver to the north (360 Maguires Road).
Section 5.5 of the Acoustic Report states that the child care centre will only be open from 7am to 6pm from Monday to Friday.
Should the Child Care Centre be approved, no use of the site should be approved beyond these hours as these have not been analysed by the Acoustic Engineer.
Similarly, section 6.3.2 (Page 48) of the acoustic report states that only 32 children may be located outdoors. Therefore should the Child Care Centre be approved, no more than 32 should be located outdoors. This has big implications, as the proponent in the SEE is calling for 200 children to be approved. From several Land and Environment Court Cases involving
Child Care Centres, as there is no way to police different
numbers of groups outdoors at once, the noise modelling should consider the maximum number on site (200) and not the amount in this report (32). Either the Acoustic Report needs to consider 200 or the SEE and application lowered to 32. Never the less, clearly it is impossible for each child to be outside only 1/7th of the day, and rotating between seven separate groups.
Having attended the site, the background noise measurements presented in the background appear to be too high, which has the flow on effect of having noise criteria at the neighbouring residence which is too high. Therefore the report predicts compliance, where if the criteria derivation was done more accurately, noncompliance may have been predicted.
In particular, in Table 5.1, the day RBL’s are 4-7 dB lower on the weekend than during the week. Given that the driving noise sources are generally natural/ environmental on the site, this is too big a difference if the logger was positioned correctly away from manmade sources. The logger appears to have been placed too close to a mechanical source, air conditioner, residential noise source or the road to elevate the background during the week and is therefore not representative of the lower background noise levels of the area.
While I believe the above data is too high to be representative, the proper analysis of this data as per section B1 of the Noise Policy for Industry is also not followed, resulting in criteria
derivation that is too high. The Childs Acoustic report in Table 5-1 and on Appendix page B4 presents the LA90 data for each day.
The presented data shows mean logarithmic results of 44/40/36 (weekday) and 38/36/32 (weekend). It appears that in Table 5.1, the 21 displayed values show the average of the LA90 results within each day period, each evening period and each night period for all of the 7 days. However as per Section B1.3, the bottom 10th percentile should be found for each day, evening and night period for all of the 7 days. See below from section B1.3 of the Noise Policy for Industry. Determine an assessment
burden for the management of the facility and creates the possibility of non- compliance.The operational restrictions required are also considered to be impractical for a child care centre.
Insufficient information has been submitted to allay these concerns and
demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed development.
As a result, the proposed development is not supported and refusal is recommended.
LOCAL PLANNING PANEL MEETING 18 MAY, 2022 THE HILLS SHIRE
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
background level for each day (7 am to 6 pm), evening (6 pm to 10pm) and night (10 pm to 7 am), using the 10th percentile method (essentially represents the lower 10th per cent value).
The 10th percentile method may be determined automatically using a spreadsheet package, or manually by applying the method shown in Table B1.
When this is done, Table 5.1 should read as below. It can be seen that the derived criteria at the neighbouring residential receiver will therefore be lower than what was presented in the report. i.e. an RBL of 42 dBA instead of 44 dBA, as seen in the table below.
No increases in predicted background noise levels would be acceptable, as foreshadowed in section 5.4 of this report.
Given the points above, is recommended that the Noise
Monitoring and RBL analysis be conducted again. Alternatively, a minimum Rating Background Noise Level of 35 dBA during the daytime could be adopted as per Table 2-1 of the Noise Policy for Industry.
The acoustic report includes criteria for a maximum time of play is 2 hours per day (+10 dB above background) and over 2 hours per day (+5 dB per day).
• Thus from this report, 44 + 5 = 49 dBA for over 2 hours of play and 44 + 10 = 54 dBA for under 2 hours of play
• If the background noise criteria was derived correctly as shown in point 7, 42 + 5 = 47 dBA for over 2 hours of play and 42 + 10 = 52 dBA for under 2 hours of play
The Sound Power Levels that should be used in any child care centre assessment are the upper end of the range presented in the AAAC Child Care Centre Guideline, i.e.
10 Children aged 0 to 2 years 77 to 80 dB(A)
10 Children aged 2 to 3 years 83 to 87 dB(A)
10 Children aged 3 to 6 years 84 to 90 dB(A)
Land and Environment Court cases involving acoustics and child care centres have been very clear: the upper end of the range in the AAAC guideline is to be utilised for sound power levels and
Refer to comments on previous page
LOCAL PLANNING PANEL MEETING 18 MAY, 2022 THE HILLS SHIRE
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
other approaches for proposed child care centres are not
acceptable. Therefore the sound power levels presented in Table 6.5 are not applicable and should not be used.
This Table 6.5 data does not take into account how many children are proposed to be in the child care centre, with it being most likely that this measurement involved far less than the 200 children proposed in this assessment. Furthermore the
“typical noise level of 70-75 dBA” is absolutely inappropriate and should not be used.
The acoustic report states that only 32 children may be located outdoors. However the SEE states 200 children are to be located.
As mentioned before, either the SEE and application needs to be reduced to 32 or the Acoustic Report should be amended to consider 200 children, which as shown in point 13 has an impact of an additional 9 dB at the nearest receiver to the north.
In the meantime, in points 11-14 I have conducted an iNoise model, utilising 3D noise modelling software that calculates noise levels using the ISO 9613 algorithm. The model considers terrain, ground absorption, barriers, building, noise source locations and receiver locations. As can be seen in the attached pictures, the model locates the receivers within 30m of the dwelling as per section 2.6 of the Noise Policy for Industry. The noise of the children are input as an area source, 0.5m high (0-2 years) 1m high (2-6 years), with the sound power evenly distributed across the outdoor area. Using the maximum levels of the AAAC range, the following sound power levels are assumed for the 32 children scenario
0-2 years: 80 dBA (10 children)
2-3 years: 87 dBA (10 children)
3-6 years: 90.8 dBA (12 children)
Using the AAAC levels, the following sound power levels are assumed for the 200 children scenario
0-2 years: 84.8 dBA (30 children)
2-3 years: 94 dBA (50 children)
3-6 years: 100.8 dBA (120 children)
Using iNoise modelling software, the following noise levels are predicted at the nearest receiver to the north (360 Maguires Road).
47 dBA (For 32 children as above)
56 dBA (For 200 children as above)
The acoustic report had predicted noise levels of “43-48 dBA”. If 32 children are considered, the highest number of the predicted noise levels (48 dBA) are not far from the iNoise model (47 dBA).
If 200 children are considered (56 dBA), the prediction is well under, 8-13 dB below (43 dBA – 48 dBA).
Refer to comments on previous page
LOCAL PLANNING PANEL MEETING 18 MAY, 2022 THE HILLS SHIRE
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
The results compared to various criteria are shown below. It is shown that when 32 children are playing outdoors, noise levels are predicted to comply with the 42 dBA background and 47 dBA background for over 2 hours of play. However, if the noise
logging was redone away from mechanical/road/residential noise sources as mentioned in point 5, the criteria would only need to be 1 dB lower for all day play to be over the criteria. In my
opinion, had the background noise logging be done correctly, the 32 children scenario would be over the criteria.
Clearly, if 200 children are located on site, against any criteria and for any amount of time outdoors – exceedances of the criteria are predicted.
It is also recommended that the proponent/acoustic consultant make clear if they are seeking to comply with the under 2 hours (+10 dB) or over 2 hours (+5 dB) criteria. From this report, and given the numbers the applicant is seeking, we assume that over 2 hours (+5 dB) is sought for, but this predicts large exceedances with 200 children.
Conclusions
• The hours of operation should be limited to 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday
• The Childcare centre is seeking a 200 children capacity.
The acoustic report only considers 32 children outdoors at once. The assessment should be redone to consider 100% of the capacity outdoors as a worst case scenario (200 children) or the application reduced to 32 children.
• The presented background noise levels in this report are too low due to the measurements clearly capturing nearby mechanical/air conditioner/residential noise/road sources.
• The presented criteria is 2 dB too high, as it does not take the 10th percentile of data during each day, evening and night period (not the median or average).
• The utilised sound power levels in this report are too low as per the AAAC guidelines and Land and Environment Court cases
• The child care centre should declare whether it is seeking the under 2 hours (+10 dB) or over 2 hours (+5 dB) criteria
• When noise modelling is considered, outdoor play is predicted to exceed the noise criteria at the neighbouring residential receiver to the north (360 Maguires Road).
Refer to comments on previous page
LOCAL PLANNING PANEL MEETING 18 MAY, 2022 THE HILLS SHIRE
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
Compliance with an all day (over 2 hours) criteria will only be possible with a much smaller number of children than the current considered numbers.
• In its current form, I would recommend to the Council to refuse the development on acoustic grounds.
Bushfire Hazard
The whole area is bushfire affected. BAL 12.5 surely cannot be acceptable given the location and extent of bushland within close proximity to the development.
The site is located on top of a western facing slope with bushland all around which increases the risk in the event of fire.
In addition, the safe evacuation of 200 children plus staff and possible parents too cannot be reasonably assured from this property given the area and road conditions. Is this not a workplace safety issue for staff of the centre?
Also, if that many children and staff are trying to evacuate in the event of a fire, how will emergency services be able to get in?
Smoke from hazard reduction burns will affect children and staff at the centre.
The proposal was reviewed by the NSW Rural Fire Service as detailed in Section 6 of this report.
Significant concerns are raised with the adverse impacts the proposed development will have as detailed in this report.
Insufficient information has been submitted to allay these concerns and
demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed development.
As a result, the application is not supported and refusal is recommended.
Fencing
The 1.8m high lapped and capped fence is out of character with the rural area and is a fire hazard.
As detailed in Section 5 of this report, the Acoustic Report was reviewed and found to be erroneous and unable to be relied upon.
The proposed development is not supported and refusal is recommended.
Pollution
The centre and its daily operations will increase air and water pollution in the area.
The proposal is not considered to be site responsive, is not
considered to be in keeping with the character of the area, is considered to be an overdevelopment of the lot and is considered to result in adverse environmental impact as detailed in this report.
As a result, the proposed development is not