Ivanhoe locals fear checks on high-rises will be too late
Carolyn Webb
May 10, 2012
Concerned Ivanhoe residents at the site of an advertised “Exceptional Apartment Development Opportunity”. Photo: Wayne Taylor
IVANHOE residents fear developers could begin high-rise projects before the City of Banyule gives approval to its revised higher-density guidelines for the upmarket suburb – and the council agrees.
The draft Ivanhoe structure plan drew 800 objections when it was released last July. It recommended high-density buildings up to eight storeys in business hubs on Heidelberg, Upper Heidelberg and Lower Heidelberg roads that are mostly single or double storey at present.
After consultation, the revised structure plan, due out for review in July, is expected to lower the recommended building heights, and scrap five and six-storey developments at Ivanhoe and Darebin stations.
Architect Rob McGauran, who is advising the council, says buildings of up to four storeys are slated for the one kilometre of shops along the main Ivanhoe shopping strip on Upper Heidelberg Road, with the two upper storeys set back from the street.
A similar four-storey model is planned for the rundown Darebin shops along Heidelberg Road.
But locals are apprehensive about a recent flurry of real estate activity in Darebin, with agents already marketing single-storey houses and businesses as prime sites for multi-storey apartments and offices.
Helen Carr, co-convener of residents’ group Save Ivanhoe, would agree to a four-storey height limit in Darebin but pointed out that after its release, the structure plan could take years to be approved – a time frame Banyule City Council confirmed with The Age.
Ms Carr says there is a risk that developments approved in the interim ”could set a precedent for higher, large buildings”.
Banyule director of city development Scott Walker agreed, saying that: ”While there is no formal structure plan within the [Banyule] planning scheme, there is a risk of developments being approved by VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal), because the structure plan provides less weight and guidance with VCAT until it’s formally in the Banyule planning scheme.
”Council has sympathy with residents’ concern about not having a structure plan.”
Ms Carr says the interest in property in normally sleepy Darebin in recent months is ”unprecedented”. On March 24, a VicRoads-owned car yard at 1065 Heidelberg Road sold for $1.89 million – $600,000 over the reserve price. On the same day, an art deco house at 1023 Heidelberg Road netted VicRoads a further $1.2 million, $400,000 over the reserve.
The purchaser of the latter was Ivanhoe Panel Works, whose owner, Angela Sahyoune, says she is meeting developers this week to discuss possible development of 1023.
A third VicRoads property – Stokers Coffee Lounge and car park – is expected to sell for more than $1.3 million at auction on May 26, according to Aaron Silluzio, of estate agents Barry Plant. The sale board markets it as an ”Exceptional Apartment Development Opportunity”.
Elsewhere are developments rejected by the council that are subjects of appeal to VCAT.
Katrina Watson, who lives in Heidelberg Road, Darebin, called for a council moratorium on planning applications until the structure plan was approved.
Dr Watson moved to her present address because it had ”such a nice village atmosphere, trees, and lovely views over the hills because there’s no high-rise”.
”What’s allowed to be built there should be done according to community and council wishes with the protection of town planning opinion.”
Glen Eira Debates 
May 10, 2012 at 7:04 PM
do you think there is any bias in the Glen Eira leader? Article about Mulch this week returning to Glen huntly with more Penhaurick bias. As you know I agree with the leader on this but can definitely see the bias here. Also letter to editor from Jamie. I reckon he will be struggling at the election if he feels the need to write such a need to do this
May 11, 2012 at 2:42 AM
MRC Fan Club , Hi so pleased to see you have noted a “slight bias”. Isn’t it strange that after a year this body has decided to re-instate the dangerous park attraction even though the original decision was carried 7 votes to two at the time. No other smart councillor suggested an alternative locationand in fact one hopped to his feet very enthusiasticlly and produced an asthma puffer stating how dangerous bark and connecting timber really is and that he and nearly all fellow timber workers suffered from respiratory conditions after working in the timber mill! What a charade it all really is and just a real excuse to conduct the real shut down of any independent thought by the Camden Councillor.
Maybe the lawyers are counting on litigation coming their way when lung complications develop.
Another aspect not considered is the absolutely dangerous ungated fence so close to the toddler platground when one considers that if the mulch heap is opertional then there will be large trucks, towing chipping machines and cars towing trailers all needing to back near the mulch heap.
IT IS A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN IN SO MANY WAYS….. and don’t ever think that “wastepaper” will ever print a balanced view while this council continues to advertise. (MODERATORS: two sentences deleted)
JUST READ ENTRIES UNDER “WOOD MOULDS” AND THINK ABOUT THE FUNGI WHICH WILL CULTIVATED IN THE WARM MULCH AND THE DISEASES WHICH WILL BE CONTRACTED. THE MULCH MAY EVEN CATCH FIRE (IF DAMPENED DOWN AS PLANNED) AS HAY DOES IN SHED WHEN IT IS COMPACTED AND A LITTLE DAMP. IT GOES WHOOSH AND WILL HAVE TO BURN FOR MONTHS BECAUSE NO-ONE WILL BE ABLE TO ACCESS IT. I READ OF THE BOG FIR WHICH BURNED UNDER THE CAMPASPE RIVER AT REDESDALE A FEW YEARS AGO AND IT HAD TO BURN FOR ABOUT A YEAR BEFORE IT BURNT ITSELF OUT.
Oh what a dilemma we may have here. Perhaps council will see a little sense and change the location at the very least.
May 11, 2012 at 10:17 AM
I believe the council has a policy of not gating playgrounds. I can see their point. If it is gated then parents are less likely to watch there children. As you know there are a lot more dangers than cars. Paker Park is a fantastic playground and huge but it is not fenced. If it was Im sure a lot of kids would go missing because parents would not watch them. a pool fence is compulsory but it does not necessarily stop drownings it is a parents responsibility. I think the wetting of the mulch will cause more health problems than not. If it is such an issue just move it to the stables in Neerim Road. It is wasteland inside the gate and there are plenty of trucks entering and no children. Remember who owns the land
May 11, 2012 at 7:46 AM
Glen Eira residents should be more concerned about high rise high density than the Ivanhoe group is – at least Ivanhoe is in the process of implementing structure plans, Glen Eira hasn’t even approached the structure plan drawing board and currently has no intention of approaching it.
Crs. really need to get their planning act together. Hyams comment (in the Leader) that planning law is set by the govt. not council is not 100% accurate. The planning framework is set by the govt. and within that framework Council defines the local planning scheme – in the case of Glen Eira, Council has chosen to put together an ineffective and deficient planning scheme that is badly in need of an overhaul. With the impending introduction of Code Assess (i.e. fast tracking of development and reduced third party rights) structure planning is what this Council should be focussed on.
May 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM
This Council cannot even ensure the MRC undertake a signed agreement by 27 April. There has not been one ounce of communication and we are now well into May. What hope have we all got of this current Council enforcing structural plans?