Granville’s 40-place child care proposal refused over heritage and excavation risks

Plans for a 40-place child care centre at 9 Daniel Street, Granville, have been refused after the Cumberland Local Planning Panel found unresolved heritage impacts and insufficient detail about excavation and basement construction.

Development Application 2026/0064 proposed demolishing rear additions and outbuildings, removing trees and building a two-storey centre over basement parking. It also included retaining, repairing and adaptively reusing the existing heritage-listed building for ancillary child care rooms, along with signage, landscaping and stormwater works.

The panel said amended drawings and supporting information were required to address recommendations in a Heritage Impact Assessment peer review prepared by Nimbus Architecture. Without that material, it found the requirements of clause 5.10 of the Cumberland LEP 2021 had not been met.

It also found the proposed construction methodology lacked sufficient detail and was not clearly informed by site-specific geotechnical and structural engineering reports.

The application did not adequately demonstrate how adjoining heritage items at 7 and 11 Daniel Street would be protected from excavation and basement construction close to the lot boundary. The panel required a further geotechnical report prepared with a heritage professional before it could determine whether the proposed excavation and other works would adversely affect those items.

The panel also rejected a request to approve the application subject to a deferred commencement condition for a stormwater easement. It said consent could not be granted without written evidence that the owners of the property affected by the easement had agreed to it in principle.

The refusal prevents the proposed child care places, basement parking and associated building works from proceeding under the current application. A revised proposal would need to address the heritage peer review recommendations, provide more detailed engineering and construction information, and show how nearby heritage items would be protected from excavation impacts.

The panel’s reasons also stated that some peer review requirements could require redesign, which would need to be documented and assessed before consent could be granted.