Supreme Court approves controversial 12 stories for Armadale
- Holly McKay
- Stonnington Leader
- September 19, 2013 11:40AM
A “shattered” Margot Carroll speaking outside the Supreme Court with Francis Gallichio after the decision was handed down about 590 Orrong Rd, Armadale. Picture by Derrick den Hollander Source: News Limited
RESIDENTS who fought tooth and nail to stop a controversial high-rise development in Melbourne’s inner east are “shattered” by its approval.
The Supreme Court this morning dismissed an appeal of an earlier VCAT decision to approve the 12-storey, 448-apartment development at 590 Orrong Rd Armadale.
Orrong Group spokeswoman Margot Carroll said in theory, developer Lend Lease could start construction tomorrow.
“There will now be 1500-plus people coming into this small area. It is going to be like a little city. The impact is going to be enormous. Armadale’s population will increase by 10 per cent,” she said.
“We’re shattered”.
Stonnington Council Mayor Matthew Koce said Planning Minister Matthew Guy now needed to “step up” and residents and the council had been united in opposing the application.
“It is a dark day for democracy,” Cr Koce said.
“It has been a long wait (for this decision). It has been a long road. We need planning reform. No one wants a 13-storey building going up to their home.”
“I take my hat off to the Orrong Group. Margot Carroll has had her life on hold for four years.”
“It’s a really grim day for democracy. Residents know what is best for their local area.”
There is one last glimmer of hope for those fighting the development.
Planning Minster Matthew Guy is yet to sign off on a planning scheme amendment which would set a height limit of six storeys with a maximum of 250 units and 50 per cent coverage of the Orrong Rd site.
The amendment was passed by Stonnington Council in February, after going through an independent planning panel.
If approved, it would drastically reduce the scale of what Lend Lease can build.
10.30am: A CONTROVERIAL high-rise development in Armadale has been given the green light after a Supreme Court ruling this morning.
Justice Karin Emerton ruled the 12-storey development at 590 Orrong Rd, which will include 448 apartments up to 12 storeys and 18 townhouses, should proceed despite numerous objections from residents and Stonnington Council.
The council had challenged a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision in April to approve the apartment complex, arguing the tribunal had made an error of law in failing to take into consideration the objections and having described them as an “irrelevant consideration”.
The council last year unanimously refused a permit due to the development size and design.
Developer Lend Lease then had the decision overturned at VCAT, despite 627 objections and the unanimous opposition of the council and local politicians.
In handing down her findings, Justice Emerton said VCAT had “comprehensively considered the merits of the proposal, based on proper planning consideration” and the appeal should be dismissed.
PS: See also – http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-19/supreme-court-rejects-bid-to-stop-armadale-development-because/4968098?section=vic
PPS: And from Stonnington Council itself –
Dark Day For Democracy as Appeal Is Dismissed
19 Sep 2013
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal against VCAT’s decision to approve Lend Lease’s permit application for a major development at 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale.
Mayor, Cr Matthew Koce said: “This is a dark day for democracy.
“It is disappointing that Council’s appeal has been dismissed. The permit was unanimously rejected by the Council, local MPs, and residents. A massive 600 objections to the development were received on this planning application proposing 466 units at a height of up to 13 storeys.
“No-one wants a 13 storey monstrosity going up next to their home and VCAT’s decision to issue a permit despite more than 600 objections is devastating for the local community.
“Council took a stand in challenging VCAT’s decision in the Supreme Court and to advocate on behalf of the community for a sensible and responsible community outcome.
“I call on the State Government to urgently reform its planning system.
“The Minister must recognise community views and the angst that occurs when developments are imposed that are not in keeping with neighbourhood character.
“The Minister has the power to ensure planning controls are put in place, which reflect community views as part of the current residential planning zones reform.
“The City of Stonnington will continue to push for a positive outcome for residents concerned about the controversial Armadale development site.
“Residents have a right to speak up and be heard about what’s being built next door to them, especially when they’ll be living in the shadow of such a large overdevelopment of a key site.
“We are once again calling on the State Government to make a timely decision on the Planning Scheme Amendment that has been submitted to the Minister for approval.”
Glen Eira Debates 
September 19, 2013 at 12:54 PM
The law might be an ass, but it’s been deliberately made so by consecutive Labor and Liberal governments whose only function is to serve the big end of town.
Stonnington deserves a lot of credit for taking up the challenge and supporting their residents to the hilt. These residents have concerns over 448 units but Glen Eira council and its pathetic administration and councillors, namely Lipshutz, Hyams, Esakoff and Pilling, had absolutely no qualms in allowing what is now going to be 1500 plus units and probably 25 to 28 storeys for C60. What that is going to do is unimaginable and its building stage will last for 15 years.
September 19, 2013 at 4:50 PM
The decision is unfortunate but it has little to do with democracy. The Supreme Court is guided by the law. Many of the bleating councillors are happy to subvert the democratic processes by running stooges to support their election. Once elected they become the protectors of democracy. Give us a break. Councils rarely win in the Supreme Court. The Stonnington ratepayers will pay. They should ask the mayor what advice the lawyers gave prior to taking the case on. This would be described in a percentage figure of their chances of success. Unless it was above 70% then emotion got in the way.
September 19, 2013 at 6:18 PM
Planning law in Victoria is the brainchild of developers and Guy is their accomplice. Why else did he settle out of court over Ventnor?
September 19, 2013 at 4:52 PM
They live a safe distance away and will not be effected except for erhaps a few race day lunches or whatever goes!
September 20, 2013 at 8:01 AM
In the fall out after the Orrong Rd decision was announced there was (and will be) finger pointing between Stonnington Council and Planning Minister Mathew Guy. Guy’s main counter claim, to Stonnington’s various claims of a crap planning system, was that Stonnington didn’t have a Structure Plan and had they done one then the development would never have been approved.
Despite years of Glen Eira residents clamouring for structure plans, Council always claimed structure planning was an expensive, time consuming process that was ultimately worthless and refused to develop them. This claim is included in Akehurst Community Guide for the new planning zones. Yet other Councils have prepared them and advise that, even prior to the new zones, VCAT rarely overturns Council planning decisions that are supported by Structure Plans. Far from considering their structure plans worthless, other Council’s are including a review of their structure plans (particularly those related to areas designated as High Density/Activity) in their implementation of the new zones.
So where does Guy’s comment on the significance of structure plans and other Council’s view of, and experience with, structure plans leave Glen Eira – I suspect we will remain up the perverbial creek without the paddle.
(FYI Glen Eira claims to have “some” structure plans, however, these are few and are “structure plans” in name only – their content bears no resemblance to standard structure plan content).
September 21, 2013 at 3:56 PM
The reported comments of Justice Karin Emerson are a concern. The matter was supposed to be about an error in law in which it is alleged that VCAT didn’t consider all objections and other submissions, and attached little or no weight to objections. VCAT itself documented in its decision that it didn’t consider all objections. It’s not the place of the Supreme Court to comment on the merits of the matter, and inappropriate for it to make a gratuitous comment that VCAT had “comprehensively considered the merits of the proposal”. Merit isn’t defined under Planning Schemes and is open to widely differing interpretations. What *is* clear is that there was a breach of law and the Supreme Court should have found that VCAT must consider all objections and submissions. If the Court really wants to dabble in “merit”, then it should note that the published VCAT decision references only 2 of many design guidelines in Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development, against which the application was supposed to be assessed.
September 21, 2013 at 6:44 PM
[Off-topic] I received a letter from Hodges Bentleigh touting for business in a most incompetent way. Signed Tom Tang, it includes: “This is a sincere request. The name of the interested party is Brian. He can spend up to $2,000 per square meter for the right property. The property is to be in GRZ1 or GRZ2 zoning.” The fact that zoning information is publicly available and that I am in neither GRZ1 nor GRZ2 undermines the credibility of Hodges as a company.