Ash Bolt
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has knocked back permit applications for two developments across the region.
In two separate orders handed down by the tribunal in the past two weeks, developments on The Esplanade in Torquay and Morven Court in Highton were both refused permits.
The Torquay development, proposed by developer Amerl Industries, would have resulted in a three-storey building containing more than 30 apartments at 86-92 The Esplanade.
However the $12.8 million project raised community concern over the visual impacts of the building and was refused by the Surf Coast Shire after receiving around 70 objections.
VCAT member Jane Tait said “the height, scale and setbacks of the development fails to respond to the preferred neighbourhood character and context of the site”.
“I find the built form will dominate this section of The Esplanade that faces the foreshore reserve and will unreasonably impact the amenity of neighbouring properties,” she said.
“I understand the proposal will have community benefits as it will assist in housing growth and diversity by providing a range of dwelling sizes within walking distance of the town centre.
“However, I am not satisfied development of the consolidated lot with three-storey built form on a wide frontage at this prominent location adequately responds to the preferred neighbourhood character policy.”
In a separate decision handed down last week, Arc Townhomes’ application for a planning permit was also rejected by VCAT.
The proposal would have seen 27 townhouses built at 2 Morven Court, which was opposed by neighbours, who specifically raised concern with the clearing of trees and vegetation needed for the development.
The City of Greater Geelong decided against granting the permit in May but ARC took the matter to VCAT, arguing the city hadn’t made a decision in the required timeframe.
VCAT members Alison Glynn and Kate Partenio refused the permit application and said the proposal had “a failure to respect and respond to the neighbourhood and landscape character of the area”.
The members specifically mentioned the proposal didn’t do enough to retain large canopy trees in the area or provide space for similar trees to be planted.
They also raised concerns about access to the development.
