Last weekends sausage sizzle to celebrate our VCAT win was great – and a good chance to catch up socially with neighbours before the silly season is upon us.
A big thank you to everyone who brought along a donation, we hit our target and have now covered our fighting fund shortfall… all bills are paid in full.
Thanks also to Ted for contributing the food and Scott for bringing and manning the BBQ.
At the Timber Yard Development VCAT hearing, VCAT did not grant a permit to the developer to build the proposed design.
So we’re celebrating with a… Sausage Sizzle
(Armstrong Reserve this Sunday)
Sausages are free, but bring anything else you want and your drinks.
SUNDAY 28th Oct 2:30pm to after dinner.
DONATIONS ACCEPTED towards the fighting fund shortfall. Or donate at by clicking here.
The Age today reports on Planning Minister Matthew Guys on-air comment… “The volume of objections to new developments should be taken into account when considering planning applications”.
This comment was made in relation and Armadale development where Stonnington Council is challenging the recent VCAT decision in the Supreme Court. Stonnington argues the tribunal “failed to give due regard to significant community input and has made a decision that is not supported by the local community or council”. More than 600 objections to the application were filed to the council, more than 440 objections were submitted to the tribunal.
With respect to the Newport Timber Yard development, the last application received 360 resident objections. It will be interesting to see how Stonnington Council fares in the Supreme Court.
A group be celebrating our victory at the Prince Albert hotel (cnr Douglas Pde and Albert St) tonight at 7pm.
Come on down and join us – it would be great to catch up with everyone who can make it.
We have just received the decision – VCAT have upheld the Council’s decision to not grant a permit to the applicant.
Further analysis and a summary to follow, but you can read the decision document here…
P27 2012 Raio v Hobsons Bay CC _md 051012
Well done everybody.
Conclusion statement from decision document…
1. The review site provides a good opportunity to introduce a more intense and diverse form of housing into the location. Given its attributes, the use of the land is appropriate. However, for the above reasons, we find that in this location, the design fails to respond acceptably to the built form of the heritage protected neighbourhood and we do not consider that the amendments made to the previous proposal are an acceptable response to the previous Tribunal decision.
2. For these reasons, the decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed. No permit is granted.