By Cam Lucadou-Wells
A proposal for eight townhouses in a narrow residential court in Springvale has been knocked back as an ‘overdevelopment’ by Greater Dandenong councillors.
In a narrow vote, most councillors sided with two formal objectors against the plans for 2 and 4 Luxford Court at a council meeting on 11 July.
They defied council planners, who recommended the project as “highly compliant” with the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme.
A mix of two-bedroom and three-bedroom dwellings were to replace a pair of single-storey weatherboard houses on the 1184-square-metre site.
Against the proposal, Cr Richard Lim said the proposal would “overcrowd” the narrow and congested court.
The proposed 10 on-site car spaces were insufficient, with some households owning up to three or four vehicles, Cr Lim said.
Also opposed, Cr Rhonda Garad and Cr Tim Dark said the “over development” would house potentially up to 30 residents.
Cr Garad said the council should make decisions based on the interests of the community, not what the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal could decide.
In favour of the project, Cr Sean O’Reilly said the council had to decide the matter on “planning grounds”.
He said it was pointless to argue against the 10 parking spaces, which met the state’s planning guidelines.
Cr O’Reilly said the area was becoming more densely developed “as it should be”.
It was “smack bang in the middle” of an array of services, public transport and supermarket, and next to a large open space at Erickson Gardens.
Also in favour, Cr Bob Milkovic warned against making assumptions of how many residents and cars would occupy the site.
A council report stated the residential incremental-change zone on the edge of Springvale activity centre was well suited for medium-density housing.
The townhouses design respected the neighbourhood character, with “appropriate” open space, setbacks and landscaping.
“The proposal is not an overdevelopment of the site and respects the preferred neighbourhood character.”
The report stated the proposal would not result in “unacceptable traffic and parking issues”.
