Longwarry units taken to VCAT

A decision over a 32-unit development in Longwarry has been taken out of Baw Baw Shire’s hands and will head straight to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The matter was lodged with VCAT after council failed to determine the planning permit application within the required 60 days.

Crs Danny Goss and Darren Wallace spoke strongly against the development, saying “it’s an awful outcome” and urged VCAT to take notice of community sentiment in its decision.

Cr Wallace said there were many issues in this application, “but none of them insurmountable”.

He said the developer was taking the matter to VCAT and “all that does is ultimately build up a poor decision, because it’s taken out of local hands.

Officers reviewed the planning application for 34 to38 Drouin Rd and determined it should be recommended for refusal due to traffic, flooding and carparking concerns.

Councillors voted unanimously to advise VCAT it would have refused the application.

The applicant, Central Longwarry Investments Pty Ltd, sought to develop the 0.928 hectare site, currently occupied by a single-storey dwelling and garage, fronting Drouin Rd.

The site to the east has already been approved for a 25-unit development.

The officer report stated the Department of Transport objected because the proposed access was incompatible with Drouin Rd and public safety; unacceptable road safety outcomes; and all access from Flame St.

An engineering report raised concerns over drainage.

“The proposal does not respect the rural village character of smaller towns given the narrow internal roads, reduced front setbacks and lack of landscaping areas.

“In addition to poor transport infrastructure, the proposal fails to provide any open space which can be used by residents for passive recreation. A more conventional development may reduce the need for residents to have closer access to open space because their lots will be larger,” the report said.

Seven objections were received relating to lack of public open space, inadequate infrastructure to service additional residents in town, noise from new residents, impact on property values, and it not being consistent with neighbourhood character and density.

A written submission to council from Keith Asher stated he wasn’t against units being built, but rather the number of units.

He said this application “represents the first steps in density housing in Longwarry” and asked “does council want Longwarry to lose its rural township identity?”

Cr Tricia Jones said there was no environmental assessment included in the application despite the site backing onto a nature reserve where endangered species were present.

“Is it any wonder then that our planners were not able to process this application in 60 days. I do hope that VCAT supports us in our quest for appropriate and good design developments,” Cr Jones said.

Cr Keith Cook highlighted the lack of open space, noting the nearest playground to this development was almost one kilometre away.

Cr Peter Kostos said several infill unit developments had been supported recently but this was “clearly an overdevelopment of the site.”

Bordering industrial, residential, farm and Crown land, he said “it doesn’t necessarily fit with neighbourhood character”.

“It would have been refused if we had done so in time,” Cr Kostos said.

Cr Goss said “it’s an awful outcome”.

“This is total overkill from a developer who really wants to build as many cheap units as possible and squeeze them onto one block in the middle of Longwarry.

“VCAT don’t care what we say at this meeting. It’s of no interest to them what the community thinks about these sorts of developments, and we know that from bitter experience.

“In this case, I would really like to call on VCAT to take notice of what the community is saying,” he said.

Cr Wallace said VCAT could approve the development but it could be reduced to 20 to 25 units.

“Let’s just hope VCAT ultimately delivers a reasonable development,” Cr Wallace said. “It will be developed, let’s just hope it’s developed to the best of its capabilities.”

Cr Joe Gauci said he was all for infill, but “this one just doesn’t cut it for me.”

“We didn’t determine in the time space that was allowed for, and that takes it out of our hands.”

“But the failure to determine is one of the things that we really need to get on top of, and to make sure that we’re the ones that have the say first up before it goes to VCAT,” Cr Gauci said.

Cr Jones called for a division. Councillors voted unanimously to advise VCAT that they did not support the application.