Council to reject massive project
Jason Dowling
STONNINGTON Council is expected to reject a planning application for one of Melbourne’s biggest housing proposals at a special meeting at Malvern Town Hall tonight.
The council is widely tipped to refuse a planning application from developer Vivas Lend Lease to build 475 dwellings in apartment towers of up to 12 storeys on a 2.5-hectare site at 590 Orrong Road, Armadale.
Council planning officers have advised the council to block the proposal because it ”fails to respect the existing amenity of surrounding dwellings” and ”does not reflect the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural identity of the community, nor does it enhance the liveability, diversity, amenity and safety of the public realm”.
It is the second attempt by the developer to have plans approved for the site. The first, in 2010, was for 479 dwellings in towers of up to 16 storeys.
The council received more than 600 objections to the latest application and more than 100 residents are expected to attend tonight’s meeting.
Well-organised residents have campaigned strongly against the plans for more than two years.
Unlike other key development sites across Melbourne, the Baillieu and former Brumby governments have not intervened in the dispute at Orrong Road, close to the marginal seat of Prahran, which changed hands at the last election.
Even opponents of the development proposal agree the site – with no local height control and six kilometres from the CBD, close to Toorak train station, Malvern Road trams and parks – is ideal for housing.
But locals are bitterly opposed to the scale of the development.
In a sign it is almost certain to reject the proposal, the council has submitted a request to Planning Minister Matthew Guy for permanent planning controls for the site that would restrict future development to a height of 17 metres – the height of the existing six-storey office building on the site – and limit housing to 250 units.
Another factor weighing against councils approving contentious planning proposals are council elections in October.
Margot Carroll, from the Orrong Group of residents, said there was strong local opposition to the Vivas Lend Lease proposal.
”The proposal would be totally out of character with the heritage, low-density surrounding area of Armadale/Prahran/Toorak and would introduce CBD-type high-rise development to these suburbs,” she said in a statement.
Should the council reject the development proposal, Vivas Lend Lease is expected to appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Lend Lease’s Ben Coughlan said the company ”remains fully committed to delivering one of Melbourne’s finest and greenest residential communities at 590 Orrong Road, Armadale”.
“The council officers’ report unfortunately doesn’t recognise the major redesign of the original plans for the site, which was undertaken to respond to community concerns over shadows, height, density, traffic and open space,” he said.
Glen Eira Debates 
January 30, 2012 at 2:51 PM
Shucks, ain’t it amazing how other councils can always do stuff and good ‘ol Glen Eira just can’t – like rejecting the c60 and like applying for interim height controls and density levels. Oops, I forgot. Newton and Lipshutz did put “limits” on – only 20 storeys! Ya gotta hand it to Stonnington and congratulate them on not having anyone like Newton, Burke, Lipshutz and the rest of the gang on board. That’s when things get done for the benefit of the community.
January 30, 2012 at 2:57 PM
yep blue ribbon liberal so Liberal Party will not allow this one to go through. Bet if MRC development was on the other side of the railway line Finch Street residents would stop it.
January 30, 2012 at 3:47 PM
What gets me the most about Glen Eira is that they never advertise the important issues as widely as they need to. If Stonnington residents put in 600 objections then it means that plenty of people must have known about what was going on and the application. I bet that in Glen Eira even today there are plenty of people who have never even heard of the c60 or the centre of the racecourse issue. I don’t blame residents for this but Burke and Newton and those pathetic councillors who either condone or let them get away with such tactics all the time.
January 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM
”fails to respect the existing amenity of surrounding dwellings”
What a pity the above criterion is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. If that weren’t so we would have far less bulky out of character meccano set eyesores in metropolitan Melbourne.
The good news is Stonnington’s apparent good sense. The bad news is that it will inevitably go to VCAT who give little credence to visual bulk, existing streetscape and neighbourhood character.
January 30, 2012 at 6:15 PM
Do people here think that Melbourne should keep spreading and suffer the consequence’s of that? or consolidate the inner and middle burbs and suffer the consequences of that?
Lot of questions in that lot.
January 30, 2012 at 6:55 PM
There is such a thing as appropriate and inappropriate development. The Orrong Rd development is an example of the latter as was the C60 – which is even on a bigger scale. Nobody is against development which is well planned. What people need to watch out for is the quick buck mentality of developers and councils such as ours which regularly work in unison with these people and turn a blind eye to best practice and their own planning scheme and guidelines. The final insult as someone has already written here is to keep folks ignorant and unaware of what’s going on and the impact that these monstrosities will have on their lives and livelihood. You obviously don’t live anywhere near the racetrack or Dandenong Rd. Maybe if this was next door to you, there’s be greater empathy with those people who do happen to live in the area.
January 30, 2012 at 8:49 PM
Not that Stonnington are lily-whites when it comes to planning. Not when you have a council officer called “George” cold-calling a resident to pressure them into signing an agreement on behalf of their mate “Anna” covering a planning application that violates ResCode. So the practice of Councils supporting developers in making retrospective applications, to render developments that fail to comply with their Planning Permits compliant, is hardly a Glen Eira phenomenon.
Face it. Glen Eira doesn’t give a shit about most of its residents. Instead of using ResCode as a means of ensuring fairness, Council goes out of its way to expend our resources on behalf of a privileged few–property developers, and the residents of its “Significant Character Areas” (SCA).
At the same time as there’s an application for 11 stories in Carnegie, emboldened by Glen Eira Council’s inability to manage anything, there is now an Amendment C87 being championed by Jeff Akehurst and his cronies to protect further the amenity of that privileged few. The specious arguments used as to why C87 is necessary shows just how corrupt the whole planning system has become. The document admits that higher density development results in a loss of amenity. Well duh! The perverse logic of Planisphere (consultants) is that C87 is a good thing because its a good thing for the residents in the areas to be protected. It doesn’t discuss the loss of amenity for the rest of us. Just why Jeff Akehurst and Andrew Newton are so keen on it remains a mystery.
I’ve had enough of corruption in local council. We have no say over the appointment of Jeff Akehurst, as his appointment is entirely the prerogative of Andrew Newton. I certainly wouldn’t have reappointed Andrew, but our councillors have chosen to do so, without providing any evidence to support the contention that he was the best candidate available. We know the process was perverted from the secret decision to use a subcommittee of 8 councillors.
Although I’m bitter, I’ll conclude with an aphorism: “To be successful in life you need three things: a wishbone, a backbone and a funny bone.” Our council lacks all three.
January 30, 2012 at 8:58 PM
Hi Colin, you are 100% correct NIMBYism is a huge problem in sorting who really cares about the issues or someone that just cares about the proposal lowering there personal property value, other than that, they couldn’t careless about much else.
“appropriate and inappropriate” who decides, is it appropriate that that people end up in outer suburban public transport black-holes, and the problems that creates, with traffic congestion in the middle inner burbs.
Who really thinks that greater Melbourne can keep expanding till Geelong, Ballart, Bendigo, Yea, and Wonthaggi meet up to become greater Melbourne.
Sure no one likes change that they perceive as negative. However the two major parties that attract most of the votes, are great advocates of development on all fronts no matter what the results, and they both back it with greater and greater immigration levels to keep the so called prosperity bubble expanding
We all may squabble over a few floors up or down on a multi level development, but that’s missing the real issues isn’t it.
The real issue has to be, what is sustainable development?
Few people and definitely not the Libs and Labs want to open that debate do they.
Next council election I will be voting for the Greens not because they have all the answers, but because they are willing to have a go, and be honest and up-front about who they are, unlike the so called independents that are not independent buy Labor and Liberal Trojan Horses.
January 30, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Stonnington councillors voted unanimously to reject the application at their council meeting tonight. See the Orrong Group’s report on this at: http://orronggroup.wordpress.com
January 31, 2012 at 12:13 AM
It is worth considration to note that Stonnington at least represents its residents not some outsider who promises job opportunities.
The whole idea of the immigration is to ensure the sale of the rubbishy goods which are also arriving by the boatload from China, as CHINA ONLY EXCHANGES GOODS, and this keeps our mining workers working in slavelike conditions all around or land and of course is wrecking our manufacturing sector.