The issues
These are questions, not findings. Each one sets out what the advertised documents say, what they leave open, and what the applicant says in response.
On this page
Traffic and the new crossover
How have the traffic effects of a 116-place centre on Roslyn Road been assessed?
What the documents say
The zone requires Council to consider the safety, efficiency and amenity effects of the traffic a proposal would generate. The applicant's planning report quotes that guideline at page 21. Its response to that section addresses car parking numbers, bicycle spaces, waste storage, neighbourhood character and noise. It does not address the traffic effects themselves.
Across all 36 pages of that report there is no traffic assessment, no trip generation figure and no analysis of queuing. No document titled Traffic Impact Assessment, Traffic Report or Traffic Engineering Report appears in the advertised list.
One number in the whole application touches vehicle movements, and it is not a traffic figure. The acoustic consultant assumed up to 60 vehicle movements could occur in a 60-minute period in the car park, in order to model noise. The report says that in their experience this represents a worst case during pick-up and drop-off, and then adds that it “would need to consider the appropriate traffic engineering study”.
So the only movement estimate on the public record was made by an acoustic consultant, for acoustic purposes, and the consultant themselves says it needs a traffic study behind it. That study is not in the advertised package.
All access would be through a single new crossover on the Roslyn Road frontage. The existing crossover would be removed.
What is not established
Peak trip generation, queue lengths, the effect during school drop-off and pick-up, sight distance at the new crossover, and how the centre would operate alongside other traffic on Roslyn Road are not established anywhere in the advertised material.
The other side of it
The absence of a separately titled traffic report does not prove no analysis was done — it may be embedded in another document or held in Council's internal file. Council's engineers clearly did examine the crossover: the applicant's RFI response records Council comments on footpath levels, crossover width and offset, vehicle overhang, turning bay dimensions and waste vehicle swept paths, and the applicant made changes in response. But that is design detail for one driveway, not an assessment of what 116 places will do to the road.
Your own experience
If you drive, walk or cycle this stretch of Roslyn Road, what you see at 8:45 am and 3:30 pm is first-hand evidence, and Council can weigh it. Be specific: which direction, what time, what actually happens.
Sources: FI – Planning Report, pp.21 and 26; Acoustic Report, report pp.8–9; RFI Response, pp.2–3; Council's current advertised document list.
School-period walking and cycling
How would school-period pedestrian and cyclist movements interact with the proposed crossover?
What the documents say
Highton Primary School is officially recorded at 218 Roslyn Road. The applicant's own planning report identifies Highton Primary School and Bellevue Preschool Centre as within 200 metres of the site.
Council has recently completed a project at the Roslyn Road and Thornhill Road intersection involving a new roundabout and raised pedestrian crossings, with stated objectives including improved safety and pedestrian access near Highton Primary School. A separate state government project delivered three raised crossings, footpaths, signage and bike lane marking in the Roslyn Road, South Valley Road and North Valley Road area.
The plans show the proposed crossover, the footpath crossing it, and an internal pedestrian route through the car park to the entrance.
What is not established
Student walking and cycling routes, the location and operating times of the supervised crossing, the number of children on foot, and what share of school movements pass the frontage are not established in the advertised documents.
The other side of it
Recent road works may have improved the baseline rather than worsened it, and proximity to a school is not by itself evidence that a proposal is unsafe. The applicant also responded to an urban design concern that the pedestrian route was not easily legible from the street and crossed the driveway and car park, adding bollards to separate people from parking spaces.
What remains is that the interaction between a new driveway and school-period foot traffic has not been assessed by anyone whose work the public can read.
Your own experience
If your children walk or ride to school past this site, describe the route and the time. First-hand accounts of how the street works during school hours are exactly the evidence the documents lack.
Sources: Victorian School Building Authority, Highton Primary School; FI – Planning Report, p.9; Application Plans, TP100 Rev B; RFI Response, p.4; City of Greater Geelong and Transport Victoria project pages.
Flooding: the part you cannot object to
Why is the flood overlay exempt from public comment, and what replaces your right to be heard?
What the documents say
Part of the land is covered by the Special Building Overlay, which applies to land liable to overland flow. The advertised stormwater plan maps detention, pipes, levels and overland flow paths, with discharge toward the Roslyn Road Council drain, rain gardens and a rainwater tank.
The one independent review that exists is favourable — but you cannot check it. A civil engineer peer-reviewed the design in July 2026 and concluded it responds acceptably to the site's flooding constraints, would manage overland flows and would not adversely affect neighbouring properties. That review lists the documents it relied on: a Surface Water Management Plan Version 3, and drainage drawing sets LC3208-1 and LC3208-2 issued in June and July 2026. Those do not appear under their own titles in the advertised list.
The applicant's July 2026 response letter names further civil drawings lodged with Council — sets LC3208-R and LC3208-3 — along with an updated peer review letter and updated architectural drawings. Council's own engineering assessment is not in the advertised package either.
What is not established
You have no right to object to the flooding part of this permit, and no right to appeal it. Clause 44.05-5 of the planning scheme states that an application under the Special Building Overlay is exempt from the notice requirements of section 52, the decision requirements of section 64, and the review rights of section 82(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Council’s site notice says so directly: the Clause 44.05-2 trigger is not open for public comment. Council’s online application page does not mention this at all — so anyone who found this application on the website, rather than by walking past the sign, would not know.
What the law substitutes for your right to comment is expert scrutiny. Clause 44.05-6 requires the application to be referred to the relevant floodplain management authority, unless Council considers the proposal satisfies requirements previously agreed in writing between Council and that authority.
For this site, the floodplain management authority is the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority. But under a standing agreement with that authority, Council itself assesses land affected by stormwater flooding under the Special Building Overlay. So in all likelihood no outside body reviewed this at all — the check that replaces your right to object is one Council carries out on its own application file, and that assessment is not published.
So on a site partly covered by a flood overlay, proposed for a building holding 116 young children: the public cannot object to the flooding component, cannot appeal it, cannot read the drawings the favourable review relied on, and cannot read Council’s own assessment of them.
It is also not established whether Council will rely on later or revised flood and drainage material when it decides.
The other side of it
None of this is Council acting improperly. The exemption is written into the state planning scheme and applies to every Special Building Overlay application in Victoria. The standing agreement with the catchment authority is a normal arrangement, and Council’s stormwater engineers are the people best placed to assess local overland flow. The peer review is genuinely favourable, was done by an independent engineer rather than the applicant, and describes its modelling as conservative. Council’s overlay engineers plainly engaged in detail: the applicant’s July 2026 letter records a meeting with them and an agreed adjustment to the dwelling’s floor level.
Nothing here suggests the drainage design is unsound, and nothing here suggests a referral was skipped that should have happened. The point is narrower: on this part of the application you are asked to take it on trust, and the material that would let you do otherwise is not published.
Your own experience
There is a concrete thing to do here that an objection cannot achieve: ask Council in writing for the LC3208 drainage drawings, the Surface Water Management Plan Version 3, and Council’s own Special Building Overlay flood assessment for this application. Anyone can ask, and every request is logged.
Sources: Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Clauses 44.05-5 and 44.05-6; Council’s published Special Building Overlay guidance on its agreement with the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority; Council site notice for PP-909-2025; FI – Stormwater Management Plan; FI – Peer Review; FI – RFI Response Letter, 10 July 2026.
Noise and the proposed hours
Was an hour of afternoon monitoring representative of a centre operating 6:30 am to 6:30 pm?
What the documents say
The acoustic consultant inspected the site on 3 December 2025 and measured background noise at two locations, recording 45 and 44 dB(A). The measurements were taken over approximately one hour, between about 1:00 and 2:00 pm. The consultant observed that the ambient environment was dominated by traffic on Roslyn Road and described the background as elevated and consistent with areas next to busy roads.
The model assumes all 116 children outside at once. It predicts outdoor play noise no higher than 47 dB(A) at identified sensitive locations, against a 54 dB(A) target, and car park noise no higher than 37 dB(A). A minimum 1.8 metre acoustic fence is recommended around the play area interfaces.
The centre proposes to open at 6:30 am. The report recognises vehicle and staff movements before 7:00 am but says outdoor play is not expected that early.
What is not established
The guideline used for outdoor play noise is an industry advisory document, not a statutory standard, and the report itself notes VCAT has not accepted it as wholly appropriate. The guideline recommends longer continuous logging than one hour. Longer monitoring, weather screening, instrument class and calibration records are not shown on the face of the advertised report, though supporting records may exist.
The other side of it
The consultant explains the choice of period directly and in terms: the middle of the day, between traffic peaks, is likely to have lower background noise than the daily average, which makes the assessment more conservative rather than less. That period is also when the most children would be outside. The predicted levels sit well below the adopted targets, and the model assumes every child outside simultaneously.
That is a reasonable answer to the question. Whether an hour is enough to characterise a site whose proposed operating day runs twelve hours is still a fair thing to ask.
Your own experience
If you live close enough to hear the site, what you can already hear from your garden or bedroom window, and when, is relevant.
Sources: Acoustic Report, report pp.5–11; FI – Planning Report, p.6; AAAC Guideline for Child Care Centre Acoustic Assessment, Version 3.0.
Two centres, one road, no combined assessment
A childcare centre is already permitted nearby. Has this application shown it works alongside it?
What the documents say
Council’s minutes of 28 November 2023 record a Notice of Decision for a childcare centre at 240 Roslyn Road, and the minutes of 12 December 2023 record that a permit was granted for it on 14 November 2023.
This is not a criticism of that centre. It went through its own assessment and was permitted on its own merits. Nothing here suggests it should not have been.
The question is about this application. When a use is already permitted nearby, the burden sits with the newer proposal to show that what it adds still works. Nothing in the material advertised for PP-909 assesses the two together. There is no traffic assessment for this proposal at all, so there is no document in which a combined figure could appear.
What is not established
Almost nothing about 240 Roslyn Road is established by the documents advertised for this application — not its approved capacity, its hours, its access arrangements, its parking or its permit conditions. Figures circulate locally. None can be verified from anything public, so none appear on this site.
The point does not depend on the number. An assessment that has not been done is the issue.
The other side of it
The two sites are separate applications, decided at different times, and may have different peak patterns, different catchments and different access arrangements. Combined effects may well be entirely manageable, and a second centre in a growing suburb may be exactly what is needed.
It is also worth knowing that in the Leopold decision, Council officers observed that perceived traffic problems at one childcare centre do not fairly translate into a reason to refuse a different site. That reasoning cuts against using another centre’s difficulties as an argument here.
What remains is narrower and fairer: this application asks Council to approve additional traffic onto a road that already has a permitted centre, without showing what the combination looks like.
Your own experience
If you use this part of Roslyn Road daily, describe how it works now. That baseline is something Council has no document for.
If you kept the paperwork: anyone notified about the 240 Roslyn Road application in 2023 will have received a notice, and objectors a copy of the decision. Those documents would settle its capacity and conditions. If you still have them, they are worth sharing.
Sources: Minutes for Council Meeting, 28 November 2023, p.229; Minutes for Council Meeting, 12 December 2023, p.331; Council’s current advertised document list for PP-909/2025.
Staged development of the wider site
What else is planned for this land, and how does it fit together?
What the documents say
The applicant's planning report describes this application as “the first stage of the development of the wider site”, with the balance intended for future residential development. It refers to a separate permit granted on 9 January 2026 under PP-825/2025, realigning the two existing lots so the centre and dwelling sit on one lot and the balance becomes a vacant lot outside this application.
The July 2026 civil peer review identifies a townhouse proposal at the same property under PP-102/2026 and assesses its drainage together with this application.
Council’s planning register records four applications against this parent address: PP-825/2025, a two lot subdivision and removal of easement lodged 13 October 2025, with a permit issued 9 January 2026 and later amended to add creation of a restriction; PP-909/2025, this application, lodged 31 October 2025; PP-29/2026, a three lot subdivision lodged 16 January 2026; and PP-102/2026, construction of ten dwellings, lodged 12 February 2026.
What is not established
The status of the two later applications, and how they relate to the final subdivided lots, is not established by the documents advertised for PP-909. Neither has been advertised for public comment.
The other side of it
Staged development of a large site is ordinary practice, and each stage is assessed on its own merits when it is advertised. Nothing here suggests anything irregular. The point is simply that a decision on this stage is being made while later stages are already in train, and the public can see the drainage of the townhouses considered alongside this proposal but cannot see the townhouse application itself.
Your own experience
If you want Council to consider the site as a whole rather than stage by stage, say so, and say why it matters where you live.
Sources: FI – Planning Report, p.4; FI – Peer Review, p.1; City of Greater Geelong planning register.
Effects on nearby homes
How would access, parking, lighting, fencing and landscaping affect the homes around the site?
What the documents say
The applicant's report describes the neighbouring interfaces in detail, including a single-storey dwelling directly south with private open space on the boundary and six habitable room windows facing the site, and properties on Roslyn Road, Remony Avenue and Carramar Court with private open space or windows facing the site.
Stated setbacks for the childcare building are approximately 20.85 m from Roslyn Road, 10.59 m from the eastern boundary, at least 7.37 m from the southern boundary and 2.08 m from the western boundary. The car park sits along the Roslyn Road frontage with play areas wrapping the building. Plans show acoustic and non-climbable fencing, retaining walls and planting.
What is not established
Plans do not establish the actual effect on any particular home. Overlooking, shadow, headlights, noise and drainage all depend on the specific property.
The other side of it
The applicant has responded to a number of Council concerns: additional trees along Roslyn Road and the western car park boundary, low-level bollard lighting for the car park with a lighting plan able to be required by permit condition, and waste collection outside operating hours. Setbacks, fencing and landscaping may manage some interfaces entirely.
Your own experience
This is the one issue where only you have the evidence. Describe what you would see and hear from your own windows and garden, and at what time of day.
Sources: FI – Planning Report, pp.6, 9–10; Application Plans, pp.8, 13–14; FI – Landscape Plan; RFI Response, pp.4–5.
Trees and native vegetation
What vegetation would be removed, and is it fully covered by the application?
What the documents say
Council's advertised description of the proposal includes removal of native vegetation. The biodiversity assessment identifies two patches proposed for removal, both modelled as an endangered ecological vegetation class, totalling 0.008 hectares, with an offset requirement of 0.001 general habitat units and no large trees.
Council’s site notice for this application lists four clauses under which a permit is required, and the first of them is Clause 52.17-1 — to remove, destroy or lop any native vegetation. The permit triggers table in the applicant’s own planning report lists only three clauses, and Clause 52.17 is not among them.
The arborist records twelve numbered tree entries on and around the site, with arboricultural values ranging from low–moderate to high.
The biodiversity assessment itself states that one of its own application requirements is not addressed in the report: recent timestamped photographs of each mapped patch must be provided with the application.
What is not established
Whether the timestamped photographs were supplied separately is not established from the advertised list.
The other side of it
A separate biodiversity assessment is advertised and does address the vegetation removal, and the scale of removal is small — two patches totalling 0.008 hectares, with no large trees. The arborist confirms no tree proposed for removal requires a permit under the canopy tree provisions. The difference between Council’s notice and the applicant’s table may simply be how each document is organised.
But Council’s notice and the applicant’s planning report do not list the same permit triggers, and that is a fair thing to ask Council to explain.
Your own experience
If a particular tree matters to your street or your outlook, say which one and why.
Sources: Council site notice for PP-909-2025; FI – Biodiversity Assessment, pp.2–6; Arborist Report; FI – Planning Report, Table 2, p.20.