Geelong council has voted down a proposed planning scheme amendment and planning permit that would allow a 28-metre high, seven-storey development in Rippleside.
Councillors unanimously voted against the proposed waterfront development, siding with community members who have been outspoken in their opposition to the building.
Developers are currently approved to build a 13.5m, four-storey building containing 40 apartments as part of Stage 5 of the Balmoral Quay development.
Under proposed Amendment C436ggee the building would have increased to 27m (28.3m to the top of services), with the four-storey, 40 apartment building instead becoming a seven-storey, 84 apartment highrise.
An independent panel found the amendment was strategically supported by planning policy, recommending it be adopted and the planning permit approved.
However, councillors showed no interest in entertaining the amendment. Councillor Peter Murrihy immediately introduced an alternate motion to abandon it, seconded by Cr Melissa Cadwell.
Cr Murrihy cited an increased traffic load, safety issues, parking reductions, overshadowing of nearby Rippleside Park and the incongruity of such a building given the character of the area.
He said after viewing the site from a friend’s boat in the bay, a seven-storey building would look “way out of character”.
“Neighbourhood character is what’s important… to the residents of Balmoral Quay and the Rippleside area,” Cr Murrihy said.
“You get a feel for things when you’ve been on council long enough… a feel for the residents and what people of Geelong really want. And I don’t think a 27-metre, seven-storey apartment block at Rippleside is one of those.”
Cr Jim Mason, chair of the City of Greater Geelong’s (CoGG) Planning Committee, said he was surprised by the independent panel’s findings in support of the amendment, while Cr Bruce Harwood said the decision “beggars belief”.
“I cannot support what I would call greedy growth through that area,” Cr Harwood said.
Cr Sarah Hathway said while Geelong needed to provide more housing options, a seven-storey luxury apartment building was not the answer.
“This amendment was not the creation of CoGG’s planning department seeking more residential housing; it’s solely been driven by the developer,” Cr Hathway said.
“The reality is Rippleside is not an affordable area and a token gesture of one social housing unit is not enough to accept the amendment before us.”
Crs Anthony Aitken and Eddy Kontelj were not part of the decision, excusing themselves due to conflicts of interest.
The City will now inform minister for planning Sonya Kilkenny of its decision.
