Jun 262013

It’s back on.

After suspending their latest development application to undertake community consultation, the developer has chosen to ignore the community’s major areas of concern and has resumed proceeding through Council’s planning permit approval process.

You can find the application documents on Council’s GreenLight planning system here – Application number PA1226036.


Resident consultation farce.

The developer conducted a resident consultation process, which asserted it would allow the opportunity for residents’ ideas and concerns to help form the new design. In reality the consultation process was designed to be of limited scope, then ignored residents’ major concerns anyway.

The repeated explanation for ignoring residents’ major concerns were:

  1. VCAT says the height and density is ok.
  2. Any changes to adequately address residents’ major concerns would mean less yield and profit for the developer/investors.

Although the developer’s latest application to Council does not mention point 2, it certainly labours point one.

Again, failing to consider residents’ major concerns, the developer has submitted fundamentally the same application once again.


What’s the design like now?

The bad… what the developer will not budge from:

  • A dominating development, incongruous with the neighbourhood and neighbourhood character.
  • 43 dwellings in a single building mass occupying the majority of the site.
  • Predominately three storeys around the perimeter with some two storeys on corners. Three to four storey building on Latrobe St comprising rooftop decks and enclosed (ugly) stairwells.
  • Dominating third level, cantilevered forward. Pitched roofs added, but framed and blocky facade. As little as 2m only set-back on balconies and walls on all boundaries of the building.
  • Predominately concrete construction with brick and masonry cladding.
  • Many units overlooking Armstrong Reserve and children’s playground. Absolute minimal private open space for residents. Resident car parking via car stacker systems.
  • With no change to density, parking and traffic issues remain the same.
  • Does not fully comply with ResCode. Does not meet Council’s infill guidelines.

The good… well some minor concessions from the developer:

  • The central opening on Armstrong Reserve side has been increased and the central pod which was visible behind it has been shifted west where it is less visible. But there is still an expanse of building along Armstrong reserve overlooking the playground.
  • The third storey (on some sides) has a small increase in set-back, but no way near enough. We should not have three storeys at all in this neighbourhood, and this building and the third storey is still completely visible and dominating from the street.
  • Pitched roofs are more in keeping with the neighbourhood. But these further increase the building height.

It is really unfortunate the developer did not take the opportunity to come up with a whole new design that would be truly innovative, incorporate passive solar design, built from sustainable materials, and have added advantages of including community features. Instead we have the same high density, overbearing, oversize, common materials, high energy consuming, gated community design repeated once more.



 Paine St elevations*




Crawford St elevations*



Latrobe St elevations*



Armstrong Reserve elevations*

* Elevation notes:

  1. Colour elevations are developer’s depiction, focusing on front most facade only, with elements behind those (but still visible from the street) reduced to line drawing only.
  2. B&W elevations are our adjustment to show a silhouette of front most facade and other elements still very visible from street.


What happens now?

Council have advertised the application and are seeking any objections before the 11th July.

To assist residents who wish to object, we will shortly be publishing objection forms online and distributing objection information packs to homes around the neighbourhood.


Quick survey.

After reviewing the submitted plans, please rate the developer’s community consultation process.

[yop_poll id=”4″]


 Posted by at 7:37 pm