By Jamie Salter
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has affirmed City of Casey Council’s decision to deny a planning application for a residential village in Narre Warren North.
The applicant (MWB Fund 8 Pty Ltd ATF Fund 8 Unit Trust) planned to cater for the placement of 90 moveable dwellings, a community centre and recreational facilities, as well as the restoration of heritage dwelling Glen Cairn for communal use.
The target market for the village on 21-27 Robinson Road was for people above the age of 55 to purchase or lease the dwellings.
Council opposed the permit applications for not maintaining the low density residential character of the area.
Amended plans, which included a reduction in the number of dwellings from 113 to 90, and included additional visitor car parking, did not change council’s opposition to the proposal.
Three lot sizes were proposed, 220, 270 and 330 square metres respectively, which were considered too small for the desired area by VCAT presiding member Cindy Wilson and member Juliette Halliday.
“Although there are generous areas for communal use and landscaping, the development comprising 90 dwellings in clusters of three to six will create an intensity of development that is not in keeping with the low density residential character which is sought in the Development Plan and which is evident nearby,” they said.
They said there was no access to services within close proximity of the residential village for an ageing population.
“In this location, access to public transport and proximity to jobs is poor, there are no medical services or pharmacy nearby and the services provided in the township are limited.”
Although the proposal would have contributed to the range of housing in terms of type and cost, VCAT members found fault with the application in regards to its energy efficiency.
“The classification of the dwellings as moveable, means the building regulations that apply to permanent buildings do not apply. This raises concerns about the energy efficiency of the dwellings,” they said.
“Having considered the submissions, the evidence, the provisions of the Casey Planning Scheme (Scheme) and having inspected the site and surrounds, we have decided no permit should be granted.”
VCAT refused the application for reasons unrelated to heritage.
