VCAT knocks back ‘unusual, unwelcoming’ St Leonards development

PLANS for a two-house development in St Leonards have been knocked back by the state’s planning umpire following neighbours’ concerns.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled against the City of Greater Geelong’s decision to grant a permit for the dwellings at 446 The Esplanade in St Leonards.

Neighbours to the proposed development, Mark and Rachel Farrugia, sought a review of council’s decision to grant a permit, with concerns surrounding its scale, height and front setbacks from the street.

Other issues related to the design’s ability to respond to potential sea level rises, with the pair also concerned the proposed first-floor balcony could overlook their bedroom windows.

In a recent ruling, VCAT member Michael Deidun said the proposal failed to “appropriately respect” the existing neighbourhood character and complement the “important” coastal streetscape.

“The visual impact that is likely when viewing these proposed dwellings from the street, and from the adjacent foreshore reserve, will reveal a development that is unusually and unwelcomingly prominent,” Mr Deidun said.

“These proposed dwellings, by virtue of their front setback and height over 7.5 metres, will dominate the foreshore reserve and streetscape to a degree that is uncharacteristic of the existing dwellings in this part of the neighbourhood.”

Surrounding properties to the development feature internal floorspaces set behind extensive balconies — with setbacks between 7.5 and 10 metres, Mr Deidun said.

Council argued the proposed dwellings were an appropriate response to the balance of encouraging housing growth and respect for neighbourhood character.

But Mr Deidun said council incorrectly assessed the setbacks, with an assessment finding the dwellings sit forward of the required front setback by 2.64m and 1.7m respectively.

“The prevailing setbacks do not support a departure from the standard requirement, which is a front setback of 8.45 metres,” he said.

Mr Deidun said the proposal also fails to satisfy the mandatory garden area requirement of 35 per cent.

“A future proposal for the review site will need to clearly detail which parts of the review site have been counted to achieve the garden area requirement,” Mr Deidun said.