The developer of a proposed warehouse development in North Geelong has reached an agreement with residents following a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) hearing.
Residents previously raised concerns regarding the proposed 27-28 Nepean Close development’s design and proximity to residential properties, with the matter heard at VCAT on Monday January 13.
Developer E.J. Grech and Associates’ Mark Farchione said the VCAT hearing was a compulsory conference that enabled all parties to come together and discuss their concerns.
“An agreement was ultimately reached to increase the setback of some proposed buildings that were closest to their boundary line and reduce the height of these buildings,” he said.
“It also saw an increase to their landscaping buffer along with some other treatments to move some roller doors and introduce some measures to mitigate any noise impacts.
“This application has been through a very lengthy process with council for a number of reasons… and the compulsory conference was an effective process that saw a good outcome for all parties involved.”
The proposed warehouse development will feature 30 buildings ranging in size from 200sqm to 720sqm containing office spaces.
Mr Farchione said the matter was escalated to VCAT following concerns raised by residents over the planning application submitted to the City of Greater Geelong and council’s availability for a consultive meeting.
“(It was difficult to) determine council’s position on the application due to council elections being imminent so the quickest process was to run through the VCAT process,” he said.
“We still need to work with council to have the agreed conditions added to a planning permit and documents will need to be amended to have the endorsed plans issued.”
North Geelong resident and registered building inspector Leo Dridan said the VCAT agreement was “relatively detailed”, and the developer addressed some community concerns.
“There’s an understanding of the parameters of the agreement and the residents are happy in the sense that the developer has provided slightly more than the law supports,” he said.
“The outcome remains deficient because of the gaps that are not addressed within the planning law in the circumstance where the industrial zone meets residential zones.”
