By Cam Lucadou-Wells
A Greater Dandenong Council internal review has given the all-clear to a controversial 116-townhouse estate being built just a metre from a busy road corner in Keysborough.
Public uproar had erupted over the Keysborough Townhouses project in a mixed-use zone at 452 Cheltenham Road.
There appears no room for a footpath along the access road to the HomeCo shopping centre, child-care centre and Cheltenham Road.
The estate’s corner property Lot 1 stands just a metre from the kerb.
Residents also fear that a shortage of onsite parking will cause overflow into the HomeCo.
However a review by Greater Dandenong’s building and planning teams found the project was compliant.
A site inspection found that the project complied with its permits, the council’s planning scheme and the national building code.
Keysborough South resident Dom Boccari, who raised the alarm on the issue, described the finding as “rubbish”.
“If I get off at Cheltenham Road bus stop and I want to walk a pram to the (HomeCo) child care centre, where do I go?
“I’m going to be forced to walk through the estate to go to the kinder – that’s a joke. That’s an absolute joke.”
The Lot 1 resident would also be put in danger if HomeCo-bound trucks cut the corner, Mr Boccari said.
“Provide me a risk assessment that says it complies and it’s safe.”
The council should buy the already-sold Lot 1 and “bulldoze” it, Mr Boccari said. Or reconfigure the road network, narrow the access road to one-way and increase the buffer between the road. and Lot 1.
The Lot 1 townhouse on the estate’s western corner was added to an amended permit, which was approved by the council on 18 April 2019.
Greater Dandenong planning director Jody Bosman said the permit varied a truck route to the HomeCo loading bay at Cheltenham and Springvale roads.
The truck route shifted from the eastern side of the townhouses to the western side to “reduce the potential interaction between trucks and the residential development”.
“That change in truck access has had both improved safety and amenity outcomes for the area,” Mr Bosman said.
The amended permit appears to have been approved by a planning officer delegate, rather than at a public council meeting – though this has not been confirmed by Greater Dandenong.
In a letter to a resident, acting planning director Jamie Thorley stated there were “significant” numbers of footpaths through the estate to link Cheltenham Road and the homemaker centre.
He stated that the estate’s parking, including 26 visitor spaces, was in excess of what was required under the council’s planning scheme.
The development’s central “open space” area was not required to be part of the estate. “However (it) has been (provided) for the benefit of the community”.
“In conclusion, our review has shown that all buildings are in accordance with the building and planning permits and as there are no breaches, no further action is required by Council.”
Keysborough resident Gaye Guest said this was an example of a “pro-development” council transforming Keysborough South’s farmland to “dense housing”.
Ms Guest pointed to further housing estates at 220 Chapel Road, Calibre, Aspire and Chapel on Homeleigh on the way.
“In my opinion, this is all care and no responsibility.”
