Subdivision all clear
One of Warragul’s most controversial subdivision proposals has been given the all clear by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
In a decision handed down late last month, VCAT member Katherine Paterson ruled the developers, WKR Developments, had satisfied permit conditions in the 2019 permit issued by council and directed council to “endorse plans and documents (submitted by the developer) to form part of the application”.
The permit, originally approved by council in July 2019, was the subject of VCAT proceedings in October the same year with points of dispute between council and the developers being resolved at a compulsory mediation conference.
But, after submitting plans for endorsement in December 2020, the developer was advised four months later by council that it did not satisfy 14 permit conditions.
Progress on the subdivision has remained on hold ever since, with WKR Developments seeking VCAT intervention in the matter.
A WKR Developments representative last week said they were pleased with the outcome.
“We are delighted with VCAT’s decision to endorse our plans to allow our development to progress. This decision does not change any elements of our original planning permit. We will continue to work with council to ensure this project can now move forward.”
Council claimed the plans failed to satisfy permit conditions relating to, amongst a number of things, footpath and cycling path locations, retaining walls, drainage easements, stormwater management and the protection of trees and habitat
In some matters, council argued the plans waiting for endorsement provided only “indicative” locations for such things as footpaths, cycling paths and drainage easements.
Ms Paterson said the question for timing for providing footpaths needed to be resolved but she was satisfied the plans provided for a footpath along both sides of the roads reserve.
It was the same outcome for a dedicated cyclist path which Ms Paterson said was shown on the plan as linking Emerald Drv with the existing vegetation reserve in the north.
“The exact location of trails and board walks within the reserve are yet to be finalised and I am satisfied that the proposed cycle path will provide a direct link to the reserve and may influence the location of an entry point to the reserve from the estate,” she said.
Ms Paterson also determined drainage easements would be accurately shown on plans at certification stage.
In her finding, Ms Paterson said council had been critical of engineering reports relating to the use of retaining walls to accommodate the slope of the land within the subdivision.
“Council was particularly critical of the extensive use of cut and fill for the smaller lots, submitting that the internal amenity of these lots would be compromised by the use of high retaining walls for some allotments,” she said.
Ms Paterson said the ultimate appearance of the estate would be one of housing “which steps in response to the slope of the land.”
“I am satisfied that this outcome is generally consistent with the outcome envisaged by the Precinct Structure Plan for this very steep site,” she said.
Ms Paterson found in favour of the developer and directed council to endorse plans for the subdivision.
WKR Developments Pty Ltd lodged an initial planning application with council in 2017 to subdivide a 21.7 hectare property at 60 Warragul Korumburra Rd, just south of the roundabout at the junction of Landsborough and Bona Vista Rds, Howitt St and Princes Freeway off ramp.
The site will be developed in nine stages and when completed contain 265 residential allotments.
Nearby residents objected strongly to the development but their concerns were not satisfied following a “round table” with developers in early April 2019.
The objectors’ main issues were the density of housing blocks, impact on residents in adjacent Selent Drv, traffic movements and access to and from the planned subdivision from Warragul-Korumburra Rd.
The planning application, against which 94 formal objections were received, first went before a council meeting in June 2019 but a decision was deferred for a fortnight.
At the following meeting in July, that attracted a public gallery of more than 150 people, most of them objecting to the development as proposed, council gave its approval subject to a long list of conditions.
However, that was held in abeyance after it was revealed that in the interim between the June and July meetings WKR Developments had sought intervention by VCAT because a decision had not been made by council within the required 60 day timeframe, although the company indicated its desire to resolve matters by consent with the council.
The developer attempted to address many of council’s conditions and VCAT ordered a compulsory mediation conference in October 2019 for all parties - the developer, council and objectors - to attempt to arrive at a settlement. Matters were resolved.
The development ended up back at VCAT for a two day hearing in December last year when the applicants called on the tribunal to review council’s position that permit conditions had not been met.
Council did not engage legal representation for the VCAT hearing and was represented by council town planner Arzu Refikoglu.
WKR Developments was represented by a solicitor, town planner and drainage engineer.