Development appeal

By Paul Dunlop
CONTROVERSIAL plans for a major commercial development at Emerald have been opposed by Cardinia Shire Council – but it is the state planning tribunal that will have the final say.
Councillors last week voted unanimously not to support a bid to construct a multi-storey office, entertainment and accommodation complex for land on the Belgrave-Gembrook Road.
The development, including offices, a medical centre, licensed food and drink premises and serviced apartments, has been proposed for a 2807m2 site about 500 metres from the township.
Councillors said the proposal was a gross over-development of the site.
But their stance may yet be overturned at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal where an appeal has already been lodged by applicants Elevation Investment Pty Ltd.
VCAT will hear the appeal early in the new year.
Developers say the proposal will strengthen the economic base of Emerald and help link the two commercial districts of the town.
But more than 50 people lodged objections when the plans were recently advertised.
Ranges Ward councillor Ed Chatwin said the proposed development had been met with concern with almost 200 residents attending public meetings to discuss its impact on the town. “It’s fair to say the community is suspicious about this proposal,” Cr Chatwin said.
Cr Chatwin and Ranges Ward colleague Graeme Legge led council’s opposition when the issue was discussed at the council’s 11 December meeting, supporting the recommendation of town planners.
Councillors declared the proposal inappropriate on several fronts, including its size, its impact on neighbouring properties and the problems they said it posed in terms of car-parking and access and the future planning of the area.
The council’s message was that the development was far too big for an area regarded as a gateway to the town.
“I do not object to an owner developing his property,” Cr Chatwin said, “that is a fundamental right – but it should not be at the disadvantage of neighbours.
“This is a gross over-development. It has little to commend it.”
Cr Graeme Legge said that although the proposal generally complied with planning guidelines, there was “too much of it”.
“Too much building, too much bulk, it would certainly cause unreasonable detriment to residents,” he said.
Cr Legge said while six people had written letters to the council supporting the development, there were 58 submissions against it.
Cr Legge said most residents were not opposed to some development of the site but believed the proposal as it stood was too big.