The developer proposing a multi-level facility in the heart of Belgrave is taking his application to VCAT following a refusal by Yarra Ranges Council.
The application for a five-storey building, including a supermarket, shops, café, offices and childcare centre to be built at 2-14 Monbulk Road was refused by Yarra Ranges Council on 29 September.
The applicant, Pulitano Properties, has appealed Council’s decision to VCAT, with six expert witnesses expected to appear at the hearing in May.
Eight full days have allegedly been pencilled in VCAT calendar for the matter to be heard.
According to Yarra Ranges Council, the proposal was refused because it failed to meet numerous clauses in the Planning Scheme and it was not coherent with the area’s landscape.
“The development, in terms of its visual bulk, will have adverse impact on the amenity of the Puffing Billy Railway Scenic Corridor,” the refusal document read.
Council described the proposal as an “overdevelopment of the site”, with the proposed landscapes, building design, neighbourhood character and plans for vegetation removal not in line with the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme.
Director of Planning, Design and Development, Kath McClusky said council’s refusal was on a number of grounds.
“Such as issues raised with the applicant by Council not being resolved and Vicroads (now Department of Transport) objecting to the application at the time,” Ms McClusky said.
VicRoads remain unsupportive of the high levels of vehicle access required at the Belgrave Gembrook road entrance, claiming the conflict between vehicles leaving the round-a-bout, entering and exiting the site, as well as trucks and pedestrians crossing at the front, makes for an “overly complex access location”.
Belgrave community members are not backing down, with many lodging written submissions to VCAT and opting to attend the online hearing in May.
Hills resident and Belgrave Tecoma Township Group treasurer Karl Williams has already lodged his personal objection, having asked for one hour to speak at the hearing.
“The developer has pulled the oldest trick in the business and has lodged his VCAT appeal just before Christmas, so that has caught many people away or about to leave for holidays and has limited the number of objections,” he said.
Mr Williams said the build would create a “traffic nightmare”.
“As most hills residents know, the Belgrave roundabout is one of the worst bottlenecks in the hills already. It gets enormous amounts of traffic, especially at AM and PM peaks. With increased congestion you’ll have problems with Terry’s Avenue, which is already one of the steepest roads in Melbourne, and is subject to mist and slippery conditions on a blind corner opposite a primary school,” he said. “Most hills people realise that it is a valuable site and should be developed, but this is totally inappropriate,” he said.
According to Mr Williams, the developer has “tried to maximise everything possible” by pushing the site to the very limits of the property.
“96.7 percent of the site will be built upon if this goes through,” he said.
A further reason for council’s refusal was that the design “lacks adequate regard” for the value of local vegetation.
Mr Williams said the build will interfere with the root protection zones of 24 trees outside of the address which will also need to be removed, including an “old giant Messmate tree on Monbulk Road that houses multiple nesting hollows.”
Belgrave resident Paul O’Halloran said the proposal goes to show how “people, in the seeking of wealth, seem to get a sense of entitlement.”
“By suggesting that some of the neighbouring trees need to be cut down, it shows you that someone can come up with something like this and allow other people to suffer loss just to make money,” Mr O’Halloran said.
Both Mr O’Halloran and Mr Williams said the proposal was not publicly advertised, which has created concern over low numbers of objectors at the upcoming hearing.
“This application was never advertised and so residents didn’t have the chance to hear of it nor did they have the chance to object. You can only object when something has been advertised,” Mr Williams said.
“When an appeal to VCAT takes place all objectors are notified so this notification didn’t take place in this instance which is another reason, besides the timing, that there aren’t as many objectors at VCAT.
Ms McClusky said Yarra Ranges Council refused the application before it reached the advertisement stage due to unresolved issues and VicRoads objections.
“Council may refuse applications prior to the advertising stage, based on objections by key agencies (such as the CFA or VicRoads), or unresolved issues with the application,” she said.
Ms McClusky said the applicant was required as part of the VCAT process to give notice to adjoining properties. She said two signs have been erected at the site and a notice appeared in the Ferntree Gully Belgrave Star Mail on 22 December.
“The community can use this opportunity to lodge a submission if they would like to,” Ms McClusky said.
“We will be participating in the appeal process to reiterate council’s reasons for the refusal,” she said.
The Department of Transport said it has since been working with the applicant to identify changes that would address its road safety concerns and ensure the development does not negatively impact congestion.
The Department said in a statement that it will participate in the VCAT hearing to ensure the changes are incorporated into the final design, if VCAT decides that a permit should be granted.
“We will continue to work with local council and the developers of this project to ensure any potential changes to the site will not negatively impact road users in the area,” a Department of Transport spokesperson said.
The Star Mail contacted the applicant for comment.
