Community warns of commercial creep in Shetland Heights

A GROUP of residents in Shetland Heights San Remo have mounted a formal challenge against a childcare centre proposed for 89 Shetland Heights Road, fearing the project could alter the residential character of the hilltop area.

At the heart of the opposition is the prospect of commercial creep, or what has been described as the gradual incursion of business enterprises into quiet pockets of the coastal community.

The proposal, which includes the construction of a single-storey building, the removal of vegetation and a request to reduce the statutory car parking requirements, has mobilised neighbours who view the empty site as a vital buffer zone now under threat.

According to the town planning report provided by the developer, the project would feature six dedicated children’s rooms, with outdoor play areas wrapping around the north, east and south sides of the building and a car park on the western side.

For the developers, the project represents an essential service for a growing demographic, and for the locals it is seen as a Trojan horse for commercialisation.

“We chose Shetland Heights because it isn’t a main thoroughfare, it’s a residential sanctuary,” one long-term resident said, requesting anonymity.

“A 100-place centre isn’t a small ‘mom-and-pop’ operation. It’s a high-intensity commercial enterprise. Once you allow a footprint of this scale, the residential label of this heights area becomes a fiction.”

The tension over the planning application was exacerbated by the developer’s request for a reduction in statutory car parking, and in an area defined by its undulating topography, residents fear that an overflow of vehicles will clog Shetland Heights Road.

Critics have argued the sheer volume of staff, parents and delivery vehicles associated with a 100-place facility cannot be absorbed by the quiet street.

The developer’s arborist report described the current greenery as planted native vegetation of no significant arboricultural value, claiming the shrubs and small trees offered limited habitat qualities.

“They call it low-lying shrubs, but we call it the character of our streetscape, they want to clear the lot to make room for a sprawl of concrete and play equipment, and it’s not just about the trees, it’s about the loss of permeable soil and the shift from a green, soft landscape to a hard, institutional one,” the residents responded.

The site’s elevation makes any development highly visible, and according to the objectors a single-storey building might seem modest on paper, but the infrastructure required to support 100 children with fencing, signage, lighting and constant traffic could create a commercial glow that would be incompatible with surrounding dwellings.

Proponents of the childcare centre argue that the facility is a response to a desperate need, with more young families moving to the Bass Coast and childcare waitlists ballooning, and they have suggested that a residential area like this is exactly where such a service should be located, close to the homes of families who will use it.

The Shetland Heights objectors have countered by saying there are more appropriate, centrally zoned locations for such a large facility, and argue that placing a 100-place childcare centre in a hilltop residential pocket would set a dangerous precedent for other developments such as a medical clinic or small supermarket.

Bass Coast Shire Council has now been tasked with the difficult job of weighing the technical merits of the planning report against vocal, well-organised opposition to the project.

The decision will likely hinge on whether council views the childcare centre as a community service that belongs in a residential zone, or a commercial intrusion that violates the fundamental character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

A spokesperson for Bass Coast Shire said council officers would assess the application against the current Bass Coast Planning Scheme, and councillors would consider community objections alongside the merits of the application and the recommendations of council officers when the planning application is tabled for consideration at the next meeting of council on May 20.

Proponents and opponents of the application were both approached for comment.