PROTECT NEWPORT

The developer contacted an objector representative to discussion the issues of the Timber Yard development and try to come up with a design that may be acceptable to the community, Council and VCAT.

Progress update:

1. Representatives for objectors had discussions with the developer where issues with the previously rejected design were considered. Amongst other things, examples of more acceptable developments and styles were presented to the developer.
2. The developer came back with draft amended design, which although had some improvements with gaps and roof lines, did not satisfy residents primary concerns of bulk, height, form and materials.
3. A further meeting took place where the improvements and failings were discussed and residents proposed a design that (as a minimum) may be more acceptable to the community.
4. The developer is considering this and will come back to us shortly.
5. If a suitably responsive re-design is returned by the developer, this will be the subject of a residents meeting; to review the proposal and provide a public acceptance position back to the developer.

Hopefully this process will result in a re-design that deals with community, Council and VCAT concerns; and enables the site to be developed in a way acceptable to all parties.

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…

Conclusion

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.

After four days of submissions, expert witnesses, cross examinations, and conditions submissions; the hearing has concluded.

Council spent around a day presenting their expert witnesses, and being cross examined by the developer and residents.

A site visit was held on Tuesday morning. Residents representatives spend the rest of Tuesday providing their submission which included slides, DVD, and documents.

The developer’s lawyer spent two day presenting their expert witnesses, and being cross examined by the Council and residents representatives.

Thursday concluded with Council and residents submitting conditions (potentially applicable if the permit is approved), and the developer opposing these requirements where possible.

Melissa, Darren, Alison and Anthony spend the entire duration performing the cross examinations, providing submissions and conditions on behalf of resident objectors.

A few residents dropped in to observe and provide them support.

The VCAT members presiding over the hearing were courteous and provided us with sufficient time for detailed cross examination and provide our submissions in full.

A decision by the VCAT members was not made today and is not expected tomorrow, but will take the members more time to consider. It will not take longer than four weeks as per Major Case List procedure.