DA LEADS.Craigieburn childcare site (demo)
Heavily supplied catchment: 21 approved services holding 1,339 places within 2 km (nearest ~287 m), against ~16,751 children aged 0-14 in Craigieburn, about 12.5 children per approved place, on a 6.1% a year high growth trend. The planning pathway is open: zoned GRZ1, no fatal flaws across the 19 of 19 constraints screened, with 5 Moderate issues to manage through the DA.
Instructions & Purpose
Desktop site decision memo for a candidate childcare centre prior to formal feasibility: who already operates in the catchment, who lives there, and whether the planning pathway is open.
Answer the two questions a childcare site decision turns on: is there room in this catchment, and can the site get planning consent and then a service approval. Register, Census and planning facts only; this memo does not model demand.
Who Is Already Here, and Who Is Coming
Who already operates around the site, how good they are, what new supply is coming, and who lives in the suburb — from the ACECQA national register, our tracked application records and the ABS Census. Raw facts to size the opportunity; this is not a demand model.
Existing services within 2.0 km
21 approved service(s) holding 1,339 approved places; the nearest is about 287 m away. NQS mix: 3 Exceeding NQS, 16 Meeting NQS, 1 Working Towards NQS, 1 Not yet rated.
| Service | Suburb | Distance | Overall NQS rating | Approved places |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hilton Street Preschool | Craigieburn | 287 m | Exceeding NQS | 33 |
| Early Foundation Childcare Craigieburn | Craigieburn | 416 m | Not yet rated | 80 |
| Where We Grow ELC Craigieburn | Craigieburn | 521 m | Meeting NQS | 92 |
| Craigieburn Early Childhood Services Centre | Craigieburn | 658 m | Meeting NQS | 75 |
| Craigieburn Leisure Centre Creche | Craigieburn | 659 m | Meeting NQS | 47 |
| Busy Bees at Craigieburn | Craigieburn | 695 m | Meeting NQS | 102 |
| Camp Australia - Our Lady's Primary School - Craigieburn OSHC | Craigieburn | 987 m | Meeting NQS | 40 |
| 325 Early Education Craigieburn | Craigieburn | 1161 m | Meeting NQS | 38 |
Where the local bar sits
Rated above the standard
- Hilton Street Preschool (287 m, 33 places) — Exceeding NQS
- Bank Street Preschool (1,269 m, 33 places) — Exceeding NQS
- Willmott Park P.S. Out of School Hours Care (1,994 m, 90 places) — Exceeding NQS
Rated below the standard
- Early Education and Care (1,271 m) — Working Towards NQS
Source: ACECQA national register extract (per-QA ratings). Ratings are ACECQA's published assessments, quoted as-is.
Incoming supply: childcare applications we track
No childcare application within 3.0 km of the site in our tracked records; 1 tracked across the LGA in 24 months, 84 state-wide in 12 months.
Counts are applications our scrapers tracked; council coverage varies, so zero means none tracked, not none lodged. Source: DA Leads tracked application records.
Catchment profile: Craigieburn (VIC)
| Population | 65,178 |
| Children aged 0–14 | ≈ 16,751 (25.7% of population) |
| Growth trend | 6.1% / year (≈ 689 people / year), model classification: high growth |
| Children per approved place | ≈ 12.5 (suburb 0–14 vs places within radius; comparative indicator, not utilisation) |
| Median age | 32 |
| Median family income | $1,855 / week |
| Median house price | $655,800 (Apr-Jun 2024) |
| Average household size | 3.3 |
| Dwellings | 18,944 (89.2% separate houses) |
| Renting | 29.2% |
| Residents with a university qualification | 38.5% (a further 44.5% certificate / diploma) — workforce backdrop, not a hiring-market study |
| Top resident industries | Healthcare (18.5%), Construction (9.6%), Transport (9.4%) |
Source: ABS Census SAL profile + cohort-model growth trend (suburb_profiles).
By raw count this is a densely served catchment: 21 approved services hold 1,339 places within 2 km of the site, the nearest about 287 m away, and 19 of the 21 rate Meeting NQS or better. On the demand side, Craigieburn holds an estimated 16,751 children aged 0-14 (25.7% of 65,178 residents), about 12.5 children per approved place within the radius, and the cohort model puts the suburb on a 6.1% a year trend (~689 people a year, classified high growth). A new centre here competes on catchment position and offer rather than on an absence of competition; the growth trend, not current headroom, carries the demand argument. This is a reading of the register and Census facts above, not a demand model.
Distances are straight-line; a real trade area follows roads and commuter flows. Demand facts are the ABS Census profile of the site's suburb, not a demand model: no utilisation, waitlist, fee or projected-need estimate is made. Supply is the ACECQA register at last refresh; services under application and family day care coverage are not shown. Application counts are our tracked records; council coverage varies and a zero means none tracked, not none lodged. Transport, parking, health and open-space facts are OpenStreetMap as at build time; the hiring market, award wages and tertiary early-childhood course offerings are not in our data and are not covered.
The School Run, and How Families Would Get Here
A centre lives on daily routines: the schools families already drive to, the health and open-space anchors around the site, and how a parent physically drops a child off — parking, buses, the train.
Schools within 2.5 km
6 schools, including 5 primary / combined holding 2,674 enrolments — the school-run traffic a centre inherits. ICSEA percentiles run 15 to 58 (mean 36): context for the fee point.
| School | Type | Sector | Years | ICSEA pct | Enrolment | Distance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our Lady's School | Primary | Catholic | Prep-6 | 39 | 703 | 971 m |
| Craigieburn Secondary College | Secondary | Government | 7-12 | 15 | 1008 | 1,468 m |
| Craigieburn South Primary School | Primary | Government | Prep-6 | 29 | 545 | 1,476 m |
| Craigieburn Primary School | Primary | Government | Prep-6 | 37 | 458 | 1,742 m |
| Willmott Park Primary School | Primary | Government | Prep-6 | 39 | 626 | 1,901 m |
| Mother Teresa School | Primary | Catholic | Prep-6 | 58 | 342 | 2,497 m |
Source: ACARA school profile extract (as baked for the map's school layer). Tertiary early-childhood course offerings are not in our data; the workforce question sits with the licence phase of the action plan.
How families would get here
How locals actually travel (Census journey to work): 87.9% drive, 4.1% take public transport. Drop-off will be car-first, which is why parking and queuing design is one of the contested issues in the planning chapter.
Source: OpenStreetMap (Overpass), queried at report build time. Presence and distance facts only; the on-site drop-off and parking design question is assessed in the planning chapter.
The Site, Zoning & the Contested Issues
The candidate site itself, then the statutory screen: 19 constraints on the four-level scale. The zone question and the issues childcare applications are typically fought on are set out in full below; the remaining constraints are condensed into the screening table, ordered most severe first, with their full risk detail retained in the screening dataset.
The candidate site
Statutory controls over the site
| Zone | GRZ1 - GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE - SCHEDULE 1 |
|---|
| Overlay | Description |
|---|---|
| SCO8 | SPECIFIC CONTROLS OVERLAY - PS MAP REF SCO8 |
The site is zoned GRZ1 - GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE - SCHEDULE 1. Zoning establishes whether a childcare centre is envisaged, assessable with consent, or prohibited, and sets the assessment pathway.
Legislation: State planning legislation and the applicable planning scheme / Planning and Design Code
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable zone | Site zoned GRZ1 - GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE - SCHEDULE 1; childcare is typically assessable with consent |
|
Minor |
- Confirm zone provisions and the assessment pathway with the planning authority
A childcare centre is a sensitive use that also generates its own contested noise source: children's outdoor play. Councils routinely require an acoustic report addressing play-area noise at the nearest residential boundaries, plus the noise environment the centre inherits from roads, rail and industry. Neither direction can be cleared on a desktop.
Legislation: Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (Vic) noise provisions
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outdoor play noise to neighbours | Standard objection theme; the acoustic report and play-area layout decide it |
|
Moderate |
| External noise onto the centre | Road / rail / industry noise onto outdoor play areas |
|
Minor |
- Acoustic assessment covering outdoor play noise at residential boundaries
- Assess external noise sources onto outdoor play areas
- Orient play areas and use boundary treatments where criteria are exceeded
No site-specific traffic data is queried on a desktop. The rating reflects that childcare traffic is inherently peaky and parking / access design is one of the two most contested childcare DA issues alongside noise. The TIA at DA stage provides the numbers.
Legislation: State road / planning authority traffic impact and OSOM permit requirements
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drop-off / pick-up peak traffic | Twice-daily concentrated peaks on the local network; parking rates and queuing decide the DA conversation |
|
Moderate |
| Construction traffic | Heavy-vehicle movements during the build |
|
Minor |
- Traffic Impact Assessment modelling drop-off / pick-up peaks
- Parking and set-down design to the council standard
- Confirm access location with the road authority where a referral applies
A childcare centre carries no on-site industrial hazard. The hazard question runs inward and reads harder than for housing because the occupants are children: separation from service stations, licensed dangerous-goods sites, pipelines and major hazard facilities must be confirmed, and site contamination history is assessed under the contamination constraint.
Legislation: State planning provisions for sensitive uses near hazardous facilities; Bushfire protection requirements for special / vulnerable-occupant uses
| Aspect | Risk | Mitigation | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surrounding hazards | Children are the receptors; separation from external hazardous facilities must be confirmed |
|
Insignificant |
- Identify licensed hazardous facilities, service stations and pipelines near the site and confirm the applicable separation / risk contours
- Confirm the bushfire protection and evacuation requirements that apply to childcare in this state where the site is bushfire-prone
The rest of the screen
| # | Constraint | Rating | Key finding | First check before reliance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Flora & Fauna / Ecology | Moderate | Threatened biota, native vegetation or a nearby reserve identified. | Flora and fauna survey by a qualified ecologist |
| 6 | EPBC / Matters of National Significance | Moderate | A Matter of National Environmental Significance is likely triggered; EPBC referral required. | Generate a Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) report for the site |
| 7 | Utilities (power / gas / water / NBN) | Moderate | No transmission line within 20km; grid connection is a commercial risk; No gas pipeline within 20km (only relevant for gas projects); No water / sewer main mapped nearby | Network connection study with the transmission operator |
| 8 | Cadastral / Title & Easements Survey required |
Minor | No infrastructure corridor crosses the site in the mapped data; title, lot/plan and easements are not desktop-verifiable, so order a title search. | Order a Certificate of Title and plan of subdivision from the state land registry |
| 9 | Planning Overlays | Minor | 1 overlay(s) apply: SPECIFIC CONTROLS OVERLAY - PS MAP REF SCO8 | Review each overlay schedule and address its objectives in the development application |
| 10 | Aboriginal Heritage | Minor | Outside a mapped Area of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity; protection still applies (a sensitivity model, not a site register). | Unexpected finds procedure during ground-disturbing works |
| 11 | Visual Amenity | Minor | Dwelling-scale built form; visual amenity is a streetscape / neighbourhood character design matter, not a landscape visibility question. | Prepare elevations and a landscape plan responding to the streetscape |
| 12 | Geotechnical Survey required |
Minor | Not desktop-assessable; intrusive geotechnical investigation required. | Commission a geotechnical investigation (boreholes / test pits) at detailed design |
| 13 | Soils Survey required |
Minor | No acid sulfate soils mapped, but soil classification was not returned. | Confirm soil conditions in the geotechnical investigation |
| 14 | Air Quality | Minor | Non-combustion project; air quality limited to construction dust. | Construction air quality management plan |
| 15 | Historic / Federal Heritage | Insignificant | No listed historic heritage place within 1km. | Confirm against the Australian Heritage Database and the state heritage register |
| 16 | Bushfire | Insignificant | Site is not within a mapped bushfire prone area. | Confirm the classification with the fire authority before detailed design |
| 17 | Hydrology / Flooding | Insignificant | No mapped flood hazard or overlay affects the site. | Confirm the relevant flood level (e.g. 1% AEP) with the floodplain authority |
| 18 | Contours / Topography | Insignificant | Mean site slope about 1.7% from the SRTM 30m elevation model. | Confirm levels and gradients with a feature and level survey |
| 19 | Contaminated Land | Insignificant | No EPA-listed contaminated site within 500m. | Phase 1 environmental site assessment if prior industrial use is suspected |
Ratings use the four-level scale in Appendix A. Constraints marked Survey required have NOT been assessed as low risk; the phased action plan sequences their checks.
Council Consent, then a Licence to Operate
Planning consent and the licence to operate are separate regimes: the council decides the development application, and the state regulator approves the provider and the service under the National Quality Framework. Neither implies the other.
| Approval | Authority | Trigger |
|---|---|---|
| Development application / planning permit | Local council (consent / responsible authority) | Centre-based child care is typically assessed by the council under the local planning scheme and any state child-care planning provisions; some states provide code-based pathways for conforming designs |
| EPBC referral (if MNES significantly impacted) | DCCEEW (Commonwealth) | Potential significant impact on a Matter of National Environmental Significance |
| Native vegetation clearance | State native vegetation authority | Clearance of native vegetation |
| Service approval to operate (post-planning) | State education and care regulator (National Quality Framework) | Operating a centre-based education and care service requires provider and service approval under the Education and Care Services National Law, separate from planning consent |
| Utility connections (power / water / sewer) | Distribution network and utility providers | New connections and any augmentation the development requires |
Comparable approved childcare projects
Recent comparable projects approved on a similar assessment pathway. Precedents de-risk the approval thesis; they are indicative only and each application turns on its own merits.
| Project | Scale | Approval pathway | Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child care centre, Cranbourne East (City of Casey PA25-0393) Casey approved 45 childcare-related applications in the 12 months to July 2026, the most of any Victorian council in DA Leads data after Melbourne. | Development and use of land for child care centre | Planning permit assessed and approved by the City of Casey as responsible authority under the Casey Planning Scheme; lodged 8 July 2025. | 2025 source |
| Early education facility, 51 Westminster Street, Schofields (CDC-278561) Recent NSW code-pathway childcare approval in the Blacktown growth area. | Demolition and erection of a new centre-based child care facility | Complying development certificate issued 10 April 2025 (Blacktown LGA): a code-based pathway available in NSW where the design conforms; non-conforming designs go to a council DA. | 2025 source |
Recommended Action Plan
The phased sequence from this memo to a lodged development application and a licensed service.
| Phase | Actions |
|---|---|
| Immediate (week 1 to 2) |
|
| Pre-DA specialist work (week 3 to 12) |
|
| Licence to operate (parallel) |
|
| Detailed design |
|
No fatal flaws identified
Heavily supplied catchment: 21 approved services holding 1,339 places within 2 km (nearest ~287 m), against ~16,751 children aged 0-14 in Craigieburn, about 12.5 children per approved place, on a 6.1% a year high growth trend. The planning pathway is open: zoned GRZ1, no fatal flaws across the 19 of 19 constraints screened, with 5 Moderate issues to manage through the DA.
What this site has going for it
- Demand is growing: Craigieburn is on a 6.1% a year trend (~689 people a year, high growth), with 25.7% of residents aged 0-14
- On the school run: 5 primary/combined schools within 2.5 km holding 2,674 enrolments — families already travel past this site daily
- Commuter drop-off works: Craigieburn station is ~652 m away, with 29 bus stops within 1.2 km
- The planning pathway is open: GRZ1, no fatal flaws in the screen
What to watch
- Crowded field: 21 services holding 1,339 places already inside 2 km, the nearest ~287 m away — a new centre must out-position, not just open
- The two contested childcare DA issues (acoustics, peak drop-off traffic and parking) both need commissioned assessments here; neither clears on desktop data
- Fee sensitivity: nearby school ICSEA percentiles average 36 (range 15-58), pointing to a price-conscious catchment — test the fee point in the demand study
Every line above stands on a number earlier in this memo; none of it replaces the demand study or the specialist assessments in the action plan.
Planning screen detail: No Major red flags across the 19 assessable constraint(s). 5 Moderate constraint(s) require mitigation through the development application.
Indicative screening fee: A$1000 per site.
Method, Data & Rating Scale
This is a desktop red flags screen. The drawn site boundary was intersected against national and state planning, hazard and environmental spatial layers, supplemented by state planning services and an SRTM elevation model. Each constraint is rated on the four-level scale, and where data is unavailable for the state it is flagged for survey rather than assumed clear.
How this screen was produced
- Spatial intersection of the site polygon against the mapped constraint layers
- State planning service queries for zoning, overlays and the nearest residential receptor
- Terrain analysis (slope and visibility) from a 30m elevation model
- Rule-based rating per constraint, with a data status recorded separately from the rating
Limitations
- Mapped vector data is generalised at zoom and is not survey accurate; boundaries and distances are indicative.
- Data coverage varies by state. Constraints flagged data-limited require a specialist survey and are NOT low-risk.
- EPBC matters are screened by proximity and mapped layers only; a Protected Matters Search Tool report and self-assessment are still required.
- This screen does not replace a title search, specialist assessments, modelling, or the formal development application.
Risk rating scale
Each constraint is rated on a four-level scale. Constraints that could not be assessed from available data are shown separately and are not treated as low risk.
Significant; likely to preclude development unless rectified (potential fatal flaw).
Significant; will need to be mitigated.
Evident but not significant; readily mitigated.
No constraint on development proceeding.
Could not be assessed from available data; further investigation required. This is NOT a low-risk finding.
Indicative Scope of Work & Fees
Indicative scope and fees to take this site from screening to a lodged development application. The site screen is a fixed fee; later phases are scoped against the red flags identified above and are a small fraction of the cost of progressing an unscreened site to formal feasibility.
| Task | Detail |
|---|---|
| Site decision memo (this report) | Catchment supply and demography plus the desktop planning screen, to confirm the site is worth feasibility spend. |
| Title and cadastral review | Certificate of Title, plan of subdivision, easements and ownership consolidation. |
| Pre-lodgement planning advice | Confirm the zone pathway and overlay requirements with the planning authority. |
| Acoustic and traffic assessments | The two assessments a childcare DA is typically contested on: outdoor play and plant noise against neighbouring dwellings, and peak drop-off traffic and parking design. |
| Specialist assessments (as triggered) | Flora and fauna, heritage, noise, air quality, bushfire, hydrology and geotechnical scopes set by the red flags above. |
| Development application preparation and lodgement | Compile and lodge the development application with the supporting specialist reports. |
| NQF provider / service approval | Provider and service approval under the Education and Care Services National Law, lodged with the state regulator; separate from and additional to planning consent. |
| Item | Indicative fee (ex GST) |
|---|---|
| Childcare site decision memo (per site) | A$1,000 |
| Title and cadastral review | A$0.5K to A$1K |
| Pre-lodgement planning advice | A$3K to A$6K |
| Flora and fauna assessment | A$15K to A$30K |
| Heritage assessment / CHMP | A$10K to A$40K |
| Noise assessment | A$15K to A$25K |
| Geotechnical investigation | A$10K to A$25K |
| Development application preparation | A$30K to A$60K |
Fees are indicative ranges excluding GST and vary with site complexity and the assessments triggered.