By CASEY NEILL
COUNCILLORS have quashed plans for a three-unit development in a Dandenong court.
The application for three double-storey dwellings at 5 McNab Court received 17 objections.
Their concerns related to several issues including overdevelopment, traffic issues and neighbourhood character.
Councillor Matthew Kirwan “reluctantly moved” that his colleagues approve the application.
He said the undertone from submissions from objectors was that they were unhappy the area was zoned general residential.
“That is very understandable, but unless the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme was to change then planning officers have to come up with recommendations according to the current planning scheme,” he said.
Cr Kirwan said the proposal was for a medium-density development which complied with the zoning.
“This is a very compliant application – in particularly offering no visitor car space concessions,” he said.
“I agree with resident concerns about on-street car parking but as a council we have no control over the visitor car space to unit ratio that the State Government sets.
“What I think is good about this development is that there is some diversity – rather than there being all two-bedroom townhouses there is one three-bedroom development suitable for families.
“Also, for two of the townhouses the private open space requirements are actually exceeded.”
He said that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal would probably approve the project if the applicant appealed against the council’s rejection.
“I just don’t think we’ve got a credible chance at VCAT,” he said.
“I don’t want to give false hope to residents that we can win this one.
“We could end up with something worse.”
Cr Sean O’Reilly questioned how it could get any worse.
“How can you pack any more into this site?” he said.
“This development is going for maximum yield.”
Cr Kirwan’s motion to approve was lost, and Cr Peter Brown introduced a successful motion to refuse on the grounds that the project was an overdevelopment that did not respect neighbourhood character.
“It has one dwelling too many,” he said.
“It’s more characteristic of growth area.”
Cr Brown argued that the council could successfully defend the refusal at VCAT, saying there were only one or two double-storey dwellings in the immediate area.
Cr Angela Long read a letter from a resident who was concerned that the development would worsen already troubling traffic conditions, which include regular bank-ups into the court.
She also said the council shouldn’t make decisions with a potential VCAT outcome in mind.
“We should make up our own mind,” she said.
