Background
Jebel Investment No. 4 Pty Ltd appealed a deemed refusal of its application to subdivide land at 178 Riverstone Road, Riverstone, into five lots and build a single-storey centre-based child-care facility for 127 children. The proposal included 38 on-site parking spaces, landscaping, fencing and signage.
Blacktown City Council opposed the facility, principally because it fell short of the applicable Development Control Plan parking rate of 44 spaces and because its fencing and layout were said to be incompatible with the surrounding streetscape. The subdivision itself was not in dispute.
The Court’s Holding
Acting Commissioner Swan dismissed the appeal and refused the development application. The Court found that the proposed 16% variation from the Blacktown City Council Growth Centres Precincts Development Control Plan 2010 parking rate was not sufficiently justified, and that the evidence did not establish that 38 spaces would meet staff and visitor demand at peak times.
The Court was not persuaded that attendance data from other Futuro child-care centres reliably demonstrated comparable parking demand in Riverstone. It also noted that the large, unconstrained greenfield site could accommodate compliant parking or that the centre’s capacity could be reduced. Separately, the Court found that extensive fencing along three street frontages made the development appear enclosed, turned it away from the street, and was incompatible with the locality’s character.
Key Takeaways
- A proposed departure from child-care parking rates requires persuasive, site-relevant evidence that demand will be met.
- Operational data from other facilities may carry little weight without reliable evidence of demographic and locational comparability.
- For child-care facilities, fencing and site layout must address the street and local character, even where acoustic fencing is contemplated by planning guidance.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that a permissible child-care use will not itself resolve design and parking concerns under the merit-assessment process. Applicants seeking reduced parking should provide robust local evidence, particularly where on-site compliance is practically achievable.
It also underscores that an otherwise functional centre design may be refused where its particular response to a prominent site produces excessive enclosure and poor streetscape engagement.