Land and Environment Court of New South Wales CITATION : Khoury v Baulkham Hills SC [2005] NSWLEC 230 APPLICANT Michel Khoury PARTIES : RESPONDENT Baulkham Hills Shire Council FILE NUMBER(S) : 10002 of 2005 CORAM: Nott C KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- demolition of a dwelling house and construction of a childcare centre for 58 children - noise impacts - traffic - zoning Land and Environment Court Act 1979 LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Baulkham Hills Local Environmental Plan 1991 DATES OF HEARING: 21/04/2005 - 22/04/2005 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 04/22/2005 APPLICANT Mr I. Hemmings, barrister SOLICITORS Baker & MacKenzie LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: SOLICITORS Wilshire Webb JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES Nott C 22 April 2005 10002 of 2005 Michel Khoury v Baulkham Hills Shire Council JUDGMENT 1 COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the council's refusal of a development application to erect a childcare centre at 36 Canyon Road, Baulkham Hills. There is an existing dwelling house on the site, and part of the proposal involves its demolition in order to enable the childcare centre to be erected. It is intended to have 58 children, the children comprising 10 0-to-2 year olds, 10 2-to-3 year olds and 38 3-to-6 year olds. Seven staff are required for the proposed number of children. The proposed hours of operation are from 7 am until 6.30 am, Monday to Friday. Part of the proposed development involves providing on the site 17 carparking spaces. 2 The site is well located in the sense that it is a corner site, and a drive-through facility is intended to be provided, with cars entering from Canyon Road and exiting into Forest Road. The area of the site is 1389.7 sq m. The surrounding area in the immediate vicinity of the subject land is residential. A dwelling house adjoins the subject site to the southwest and that house is No. 34 Canyon Road. To the southeast, there is a group of townhouses at No. 35 Linton Street, the closest townhouse being unit 1. 3 The issues for the hearing are set out in the respondent's statement of issues dated 18 February 2005. The issues relate to noise impacts of the proposal, traffic impacts, and other matters raised in the letters of objection going to the public interest. 4 The hearing commenced with a view of the site and surrounding area. Although under the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 this appeal is a court hearing, by consent I heard oral evidence at the site from about 10 residents. At the site, there were many other residents and one of the residents, Mr R Byrne, of 25 Canyon Road, spoke on behalf of residents generally. Likewise, councillor Tony Hay spoke on matters generally and in particular concerning the zoning objectives. 5 I have read and taken into account the many letters of objection that were lodged by the residents. Quite a number of letters of objection were in a pro forma layout and I will read one of those letters. I understand that this development application will come before the council meeting on Tuesday 14 December for consideration and that council's planning department has recommended to councillors that it be passed. I want the councillors to understand that this development will not only affect the residents close to the development, but will affect all the residents of this network of streets, and, as a resident I wish to register my strong opposition to the development for the following reasons. + Traffic safety. These streets and the access to them via Oakland Avenue already bear large volumes of traffic serving Our Lady of Lourdes Church and School, along with associated before-and-after school-care facilities. The present traffic situation in the street during morning and afternoon school peaks, and at other times, is already chaotic. Drivers show very little concern for the road rules or for the safety of the residents, both in their parking and in their driving habits. This development will add to the traffic volumes and make the matter worse. Already a child has been killed in Oakland Avenue and I do not want it to happen again. + Emergency access. Proximity to the bush areas of the Excelsior Reserve raise concerns of access for fire and other emergency vehicles as well as evacuation movements should the need arise during a traffic peak. + Social impact. As bad as the existing traffic situation is, this development will only make it worse and will reduce the amenity of the area even further. The social impact, as defined in section 79C of the EP&A Act, is great as a result of the current traffic situation and will be much worse if this development goes ahead. Residents of this area already suffer greatly due to this appalling traffic situation and this development is definitely not in the interests of residents. I urge council to pay more careful attention to these wider impacts of this development and reject it totally. 6 There were about 35 similar letters to the one I have just read out. There were quite a number of other letters individually written, expressing in different ways the concern of the residents. As well, there was a petition signed by about 70 residents which reads: We the undersigned who are residents of Oakland Avenue, Canyon Road, Forest Road and Linton Street and who are in close proximity or will be directly affected by the proposed development at 36 Canyon Road, Baulkham Hills, wish to object on the grounds that the extra traffic congestion, noise and pollution will substantially reduce the enjoyment of our land and adversely affect our living environment. 7 Besides the evidence of the residents, the Court was presented with three court-appointed experts' reports and evidence. 8 In the course of its consideration of this matter, which had been before the council for some time, the council resolved to agree to the Court making orders by consent if issues raised by the Court-appointed experts were satisfactorily resolved to their satisfaction. 9 In respect of traffic and parking matters, traffic engineer Mr T Rogers gave evidence and his report as regards traffic flows summarises the position at paragraph 2.14: Existing traffic flows in Oakland Avenue, Forest Road and Canyon Avenue are within the environmental capacity range of 300 to 500 vehicles per hour for collector roads. The proposed childcare centre would generate some 10 to 25 vehicles per hour, two way, in the morning and afternoon peak periods and this low level of traffic generation would not result in any significant change to the amenity of the surrounding road network." 10 The residents challenged this evidence. Their concerns about the traffic situation are clearly well founded as regards what is happening now. The problems seem to stem from the fact that the M2 construction resulted in the closing of various access routes into Canyon Road, Linton Street and Forest Road. The only means of access now is from Windsor Road via Oakland Avenue. 11 The traffic problems are further exacerbated by the fact that, as mentioned in the first letter I read, there is a school and church located close to Windsor Road, and the main access to the school and church complex is down Canyon Road, which is now a dead-end street, and access to Canyon Road has to be obtained via Oakland Avenue, as I mentioned. 12 It seems that there is insufficient parking available for parents who pick up and drop off children at locations that will not adversely affect the flow of traffic. The flow of traffic out of Oakland Avenue is at the present time adversely affected because the queuing lanes near the junction of Oakland Avenue and Windsor Road are too short. As well, commuter parking is now occurring in Oakland Avenue for commuters to catch a bus close by at Windsor Road going to the city. 13 In his report and in the oral evidence given at the site, Mr Rogers referred to the different peak hours. The peak hour for the school in the morning will be after the peak hour for the proposed childcare centre. In the afternoon, the peak hour for the childcare centre will be after the peak hour for the school. The traffic counts that are included in his report will probably not vary significantly as regards the higher traffic counts; and at the peak hour for children to be dropped off, the traffic flows are probably likely to be less than those flows indicated for the period from 8 am to 9 am, or at least there will not be a significant increase in those figures. 14 As regards the number of carparking spaces on the subject site, the 17 spaces in my opinion will be adequate for both staff and for parents who drop off their children. I am aware that from other cases the drop-off time is often on average around about six minutes. A parent will be able to drive onto the site and leave the child there after parking the car, and then return to the car and drive out. I do not think on the material available that it is likely that there will be many persons who are commuters who drop their children off and then have to park their car elsewhere in the locality who are not already parking their car perhaps in the vicinity. It could be that there will be a small number but I do not see that this is a reason to be of great concern in the circumstances of this case. 15 Recommendations that I will make, if implemented by the council, are likely to improve the traffic situation, a situation that has been brought about by commuter parking and by the lack of proper design of the intersection of Oakland Avenue and Windsor Road, and parents of children parking to drop off or pick up children who attend the Catholic school. 16 Many of the letters to the council made the following four recommendations, which were recommended to the council regardless of the outcome of the present appeal. 1. Widening the road or preventing parking on the Oakland Avenue –Forest Road bend, and introducing a centre rumble strip or divider of some sort to force cars to slow down and stay on the correct side of the road. 2. Placing a small roundabout at the intersection of Forest Road and Canyon Road to force cars to slow and keep to the left of the centre when turning. 3. Providing a longer additional lane at the intersection of Oakland Avenue and Windsor Road to allow more cars to turn at each traffic signal cycle. 4. Modifying the length of the traffic signal cycle to allow more cars to exit at each traffic signal cycle. 17 Those were the recommendations of quite a number of residents. Those recommendations are partly repeated by Mr Rogers and he repeats these recommendations for the purpose of addressing the current problems that the residents are experiencing. Mr Rogers recommends: 1. Widen Oakland Avenue to extend the two lanes on the approach to Windsor Road. This would reduce queuing on Oakland Avenue. 2. Introduce parking restrictions in Oakland Avenue and Canyon Road to remove commuter parking from these streets. 3. Construct a mini roundabout at the intersection of Canyon Road and Forest Road to manage traffic movements at this intersection. 18 He also indicated orally a fourth recommendation, that "No parking" signs should be put on the eastern side of the bend of Oakland Road and Forest Road, even though strictly speaking such signs would not be needed because there are double lines. But those double lines are not clearly evident, and in addition it seems that persons are not always familiar with the road rules, that the road width would not allow parking in that vicinity because of the double lines. 19 So I would recommend to the council to consider those recommendations made by Mr Rogers and consideration could be also given to other suggestions of the residents. 20 On traffic and parking grounds I would not refuse this application. It is most important in my view that a childcare centre should have a drive-through facility if the proposed children numbers are significant, as they are in this case. In addition, there should be an appropriate number of parking spaces, as there is in this case. 21 The Court-appointed acoustic engineer was Mr B Murray. During the early part of the hearing, having regard to the evidence of Ms Burkitt, I expressed concerns about the impact of the proposed development on her amenity. I will not read out her lengthy written submission in full because it refers to traffic and parking matters that I have already referred to. Her main concern was about noise. In her written objections she said: The main reason I bought my unit in Linton Street was that it was a quiet residential area, close to natural bush, where I can live a quiet, peaceful and private lifestyle. I was diagnosed with having the blood cancer leukaemia approximately 14 years ago, and after four years of chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment I am in remission, but I have to watch my stress levels, diet and lifestyle to stay in this state of remission from leukaemia. This proposed childcare centre will impact negatively on my lifestyle and create unnecessary stress on my living environment and my health. My profession is as a contract civil engineering drafter specialising in road and traffic signal design, and my place of work varies from working full time at home, part time at home and part time in the client's office to full time at the client's office. It goes without saying that the increased noise as discussed above will have a detrimental effect on my capacity to earn my living. My study (workplace) at home faces the proposed children's play area which is less than six metres away. The children playing outside and other associated noises generated by this proposal will be totally unacceptable. 22 Following detailed consideration by Mr Murray, some amendments have been proposal. Conditions were also proposed that were intended to protect the amenity of Ms Burkitt. Originally there was proposed to be a 2.1 m high fence along the common boundary between her property and the subject property. However, the outdoor play area for children over two years was to be located in part immediately adjoining that boundary towards the street frontage. Noise from those children would be louder than noise from children under two years of age and in my opinion would affect the amenity of Ms Burkitt unless that noise was properly controlled by the managers of the childcare centre. It would be quite inappropriate to have child-playing equipment close to the boundary which would enable children to be at a more elevated level generating noise towards the front open door of Ms Burkitt's unit. 23 A whole series of conditions have been devised to mitigate the effects of the childcare centre as regards noise and they are contained in a noise management policy, which more appropriately should be called a Noise Management Plan, and the council has proposed a condition of consent requiring compliance with all the provisions of this management plan. 24 Besides conditions going to the manner of operation of the childcare centre which will reduce the noise that might otherwise be generated, there is a separate condition relating to the construction of an acoustic fence which will consist of a 2.1 m high masonry element above the ground level of Ms Burkitt's property, above which will be a clear polycarbonate screen angled at 45 degrees so that the top edge of that screen will then be three metres vertically above the closest level of the playing area at the subject site. The construction of such a barrier will, according to the joint expert report of Mr B Murray and of acoustic engineer Mr Matthew Harrison, have the effect of bringing noise levels well under the criteria that they adopted as appropriate. 25 The criteria which has to be met as regards the level of noise which is not to be exceeded at certain places designated at Ms Burkitt's property is set out in proposed condition 96. 26 It is envisaged by the Baulkham Hills Local Environmental Plan 1991 that a childcare centre may be approved in the 2(a) zone. There may be some diminution in the amenity of residents whose places are adjoining or very close to a childcare centre. However, it has generally been the practice to approve childcare centres, even though there may be some additional adverse impacts for adjoining residences than would be the impacts from a dwelling house use of the childcare-centre property. 27 Having regard to all the conditions that have to be complied with in the Noise Management Plan and to condition 96, I am of the opinion that the proposed development should not be refused because of the noise that will occur from the centre. 28 The proposed development must be consistent with one or more of the aims and objectives of the LEP, or one or more of the objectives of the zone within which it will be carried out. It is important to note that the wording is "consistent with". That does not mean "comply with". I am of the opinion that the proposed development will be consistent with at least the aim in clause 2(1)(c); and that it will be consistent with the objective in clause (2)(b), even though as regards the immediate locality, namely Ms Burkitt's property, there will be some change to her amenity. 29 I am also of the opinion having regard to the expert oral evidence of Court-appointed town planner Mr D Brindle that the proposed development would be consistent with one or more of the objectives of the zone within which the childcare centre will be located and in particular with paragraph (c) of the objectives. I have not overlooked the other objectives. As regards objective (f), the principal intent of this zone is to provide it seems townhouses, villas and the like in locations close to established public transport routes. As set out in the written report of Mr Brindle, the proposed development may be regarded as being consistent with one or more of the objectives of the zone. 30 The neighbour who lives opposite the subject site at 9 Forest Road, Mr Legey, was concerned about headlight glare. However, a limitation on the hours of operation will reduce headlight glare to only a short period in winter time. 31 The adjoining neighbours at 34 Canyon Road were concerned about noise impacts, and the conditions of consent have been drafted to require the type of fencing that they would desire between their property and the childcare centre. The impact on their property from children playing will be reasonable in the circumstances, having regard to the fact that in the south-eastern corner of the subject property adjoining their property the children who will be playing will be children within the age group of zero to two, and there will be a fence constructed to shield unacceptable noise to their property. 32 Having regard to a consideration of all the evidence and my view of the site and locality, I am of the opinion in the circumstances that it is appropriate to endorse the agreement of the parties and to grant development consent, subject to the conditions agreed to by the parties. 33 Accordingly the orders of the Court are, by consent: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Development consent is granted for the demolition of the existing buildings and for the erection of a childcare centre at 36 Canyon Road, Baulkham Hills, subject to the conditions in annexure A to hereto. 3. The exhibits other than exhibits E, 8, 9, 10 and 16 may be returned. _____________ A J Nott Commissioner of the Court ljr ANNEXURE A NB In this internet version only the more important conditions, mainly relating to neighbour amenity, are reproduced. (A full copy of the conditions may be inspected at the council.) CONDITIONS BAULKHAM HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL ats MICHEL KHOURY Appeal 10002 of 2005 LOT 79 DP 13443, NO. 36 CANYON ROAD, BAULKHAM HILLS 1. Development in accordance with Submitted Plans (as amended) The development is to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details described as follows: o Architectural Plans prepared by Actron Design Pty Ltd – Drawing No. 89399 Sheet 1/4 Rev F dated 1 April 05, Drawing No. 89399 Sheet 2/4 Rev F dated 1 April 05 and Drawing No. 89399 Sheet 3/4 Rev F dated 1 April 05. o Stormwater Plan prepared by ACM Civil and Structural Engineers – Sheet 1 of 1 amended 6/09/04. This plan shall be amended to show the location of the building in relation to the boundaries and the layout of the carpark so that it is the same as the above described architectural plans. o Landscape plan prepared by Michael Siu Landscape Architects – Drawing No. L01/1-R8614 Dated 5 March 2004 and as amended by condition 43. No works (including excavation) shall be undertaken prior to the release of the construction certificate. This consent authorises the child care centre to cater for a total of 58 children. Any increase is subject to the further consent of Council. … 4. Provision of Parking Spaces and Signposting There shall be seventeen (17) off-street car parking spaces provided and maintained. This is to include one (1) disabled parking space, which is to be suitably dimensioned and signposted. A sign is to be placed at the entry to the car park stating to parents "Short term parking only: visitor parking is restricted to two hours". Car spaces 1,2,3 and 14,15,16,17 are to be designated as staff car parking spaces. These spaces are to be marked and signposted as staff carparking spaces. 5. Signage Consent is issued for the erection of one (1) non-illuminated sign with the following dimensions: width: 1.5 metres, height: 0.8 metres (total area: 1.2m2), with a maximum height above natural ground level of 2.5 metres. This sign is to be wholly located within the property boundary and is not to obscure the vision of drivers. The details of the sign must be strictly in accordance with the details approved by Council and returned with this consent. Any additional signage and/or changes in the design of the signage is subject to the further consent of Council. The hours of operation depicted on the sign, shall accord to the approved hours of operation within this consent. … 28. Odour Control To ensure that adequate provision is made for the treatment of odours, the mechanical exhaust system shall be fitted with sufficient control equipment to prevent the emission of all offensive odours from the premises, as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997. … 33. Perimeter Fence Construction. (a) Boundary adjoining No. 1/35 Linton Street (southeast boundary)— (i) a 2.1m high (measured from the existing ground level of unit 1, 35 Linton Street) masonry fence shall be constructed along this boundary from the southern corner of the subject site to a point 1m from the Forest Road boundary. At this point the fence will step down to a height of 1.5m (ii) A 45 degree, minimum width 6mm, clear polycarbonate acoustic screen angled over the development site shall be constructed from the top of the masonry wall on the southeast boundary from the southern corner to a point 2m from the Forest Road boundary. The top edge of the polycarbonate screen at any point shall be 3m vertically above the level of the closest point of the play area. (iii) The southeast side of the fence is to be bagged or plastered and to be a colour agreed to by the owner of No. 1/35 Linton Street. That agreement is not to be unreasonably withheld. In the absence of agreement within 21 days of written request by the developer the owners agreement shall not be required by this condition (or condition 33(c)). (b) Boundary adjoining No. 34 Canyon Road (southwest boundary)— (i) a 2.1m high (measured from the finished ground level of the adjoining play area of the development site) masonry fence shall be constructed along the boundary from the southern corner of the development site for a distance of 12m. (ii) a 1.5m high (measured from the existing ground level of No. 34 Canyon Road) lapped and capped timber fence shall be constructed along the boundary from the end of the fence in (i) above for a distance of 15m (iii) a 1.5m high (measured from the existing ground level of No. 34 Canyon Road) masonry fence shall be constructed along the boundary from the end of the fence in (ii) above to the front boundary with Canyon Road (c) Full details of all the fencing including the agreement with the owner of No. 1/35 Linton Street as referred to in (a)(ii) above to be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of the construction certificate. (d) All fencing (including engaged piers and ancillary works such as drainage works) are to be located within the development site. 34. Protective Guard Rail A guard-rail is to be incorporated within the two (2) metre wide landscape strip on the Canyon Road and Forest Road frontages (forward of the parking spaces) to minimise potential impact on the childcare centre from motor vehicle accidents. Landscaping is to be provided forward of the guard-rail to soften the appearance of this protective device on the streetscape. 35. Glass Door and Window Construction All glass doors and windows shall be constructed with a minimum of 6mm glazing. 36. Noise Control The use of the premises (excluding the outdoor play area), building services, equipment (including amplified equipment), machinery and ancillary fittings shall not give rise to "offensive noise" as defined under the provision of the Protection of the Environment Operation Act 1997. The sound level output shall not exceed 45dB(A) at the south east and south west boundaries and 50 dB(A) at other residential boundaries. 37. Door Construction To minimise the impact of noise from the premises the door adjoining to the southern storeroom of the premises shall be of 35mm solid core construction, with a door closer installed. The door should only be opened for access out of or into the building. They must remain closed at all other times. 38. Window Construction To minimise the impact of noise from the premises all the windows of the south west elevation (including the cot room and the 0-2 year old room) shall be inoperable and consist of 6mm float glass. 39. Air Conditioner use/location a) The building shall be air conditioned. b) The air conditioning unit shall be located at a distance greater than 3 metres from the boundary of the closest residence. In this regard, the air conditioning unit on the southeast elevation will require repositioning. This unit shall be more appropriately placed on the northwest or northeast elevation (i.e fronting the car park or Forest Road) and away from adjoining residences. c) The air conditioning units must not be used before 7am or after 6.30 pm on any given day of operation. 40. Illumination of the Carpark Any illumination of the car park is not to impact upon the amenity of adjoining neighbours. The lights are to be suitably shielded to ensure that the light does not spill outside the property boundary at any time are required to be turned off by 6:30pm on each day of operation. All lighting shall comply with the Australian Standard AS 4282:1997 The Control of Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting. … 76. Residential Building Works Where building works take place on residential construction sites and where the building separation between two buildings is 2 metres or less, the applicant will be required to screen any scaffolding or similar structures to prevent falling materials affecting the adjoining property. … THE USE OF THE SITE 89. Noise Management Plan The development is to be strictly operated in accordance with the Noise Management Plan which is attached and marked "A". Any amendments to the Noise Management Plan require the consent of Council by a new Development Application or section 96 modification application. 90.91. [Deleted.] 96. Final Acoustic Reports (a) The LAeq noise level measured over any 15 minute period generated by children playing at the centre shall not exceed: (i) 50dB(A) when measured at the ground level open space of 1/35 Linton Street and 34 Canyon Road; (ii) 50dB(A) when measured at the first floor rear the balcony of 1/35 Linton Street; and (iii) 55dB(A) when measured at the first floor front balcony at 1/35 Linton Street. (b) Within three months from the issue of an occupation certificate, and separately within 12 months from the issue of an occupation certificate, an acoustical assessment is to be carried out by an appropriately qualified person, in accordance with the EPA's Industrial Noise Policy and submitted to Council for consideration. (i.e. 2 separate reports). The reports should include but not be limited to, details verifying compliance with condition 96(a). The report must also state the number of children in the childcare centre and in the separate play areas at the time of testing. Finally, the report must also specify any further noise attenuation measures (which may include, for example, a reduction in the number of children at the centre) and\or changes in the Noise Management Plan that may be required in the case that the limits in condition 96 (a) are not being complied with. The property owner will be required to implement these measures within a timeframe specified by Council at that stage. 97. Food Handling The proprietor is to ensure that all handling of food complies with the requirements of the Food Act 2003 and regulations there under. 98. Pollution Control Any activity carried out in accordance with this approval shall not give rise to offensive odour, offensive noise or pollution of land and/or water as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. 99. Waste Handling All Waste is to be stored, handled and disposed of in such a manner as to not create offensive odour, offensive noise or pollution of land and/or water as defined in the protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. 100. Pollution Incident Reporting In accordance with the requirements of Part 5.7 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Council is to be informed of any pollution incident where material harm to the environment is caused or threatened that which occurs in the course of carrying out the approved activity. 101. Play Equipment The final height of any play equipment is to be in the 0-2 year old play area (as marked on the approved plans) no more than 900mm above finished ground level to protect the privacy of residents. 102. Landscaping The approved landscaping required to be established by conditions 1 and 43 shall be maintained. ___________________ [Attached: Noise Management Plan] Long Day Care Centre: 36 Canyon Rd, Baulkham Hills Noise Management Plan Aim of Plan To identify and implement strategies to minimise the noise generated by the operation of the child care centre. Implementation Hours of operation: 1. The hours of operation of the Centre are 7.00am to 6.30 pm Monday to Friday. The Centre will be closed weekends and public holidays. 2. No staff or children shall arrive at the Centre prior to 7.00 am. Child care will stop at 6pm. Only staff (including cleaners, maintenance staff etc) may remain on the premises until 6.30pm. 3. The Centre will operate for a maximum of fifty (50) weeks per year. 4. The Centre shall have a maximum of 58 children and 7 staff members at any time. This shall include: 0-2 year old children – 10 only 2-3 year old children – 10 3-6 year old children – 38 Total 58 Signage: 5. A sign shall be erected at the entrance to the premises and maintained at all times, requesting that: - Staff, Parents/Carers and Children converse quietly at all times when outdoors; - Parents/Carers do not call out to their children when delivering or collecting children; and - Gates must not be slammed. Use of outdoor areas: 6. Only children aged up to 2 years shall play in the 0-2 play area (as marked on the approved plans). A maximum of 5 children are to be outdoors in the 0-2 play area at any one time (including the verandah areas). 7. A maximum of 30 children (including the 0-2 year children, if any) are to be outdoors at any one time (including the verandah areas). 8. There is to be a maximum cumulative outdoor (including the verandah areas) play time of 3 hours on any one day. 9. There shall be no amplified speakers, music or musical instruments external to the building. Crying children must be taken indoors. 10. Active play equipment is to be located within the north-eastern part of the 2-6 year old outdoor play area to attract children away from the property boundary adjacent to Unit 1, 35 Linton Street. 11. There shall be no active play equipment located in the south-eastern part of the 2-6 year old outdoor play area, adjacent to Unit 1, 35 Linton Street. No structured play activities that are likely to generate noise shall be permitted in this area. 12. Gates shall be fitted with proprietary rubber buffers to minimise the level of impact closure noise. Access to play areas: 13. Doors that provide access from the building to the outside play areas shall only be opened to allow access either into or out of the building. These doors are to remain closed at all other times. Parent communication: 14. A copy of this Noise Management Plan is to be provided to parents of all new children at the Centre as part of the enrolment process. 15. A reminder of this Noise Management Plan and the need to adhere thereto, shall be sent to all Parents at least twice per year. Deliveries & Garbage Collection: 16. All deliveries are to occur between 9.00am and 5.00pm Monday to Friday. . The delivery of goods is restricted to vehicles no longer than a small van or utility vehicle. 17. Waste and recycling material generated by the premises must not be collected between the hours of 10pm and 7am on any day __________ DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.