Ormond ‘Sky Tower’ plans have been revived – again – but with some key differences
Adam Carey
A dormant high-rise housing project – derisively dubbed the “Ormond Sky Tower” when plans for it emerged eight years ago – has been revived as the latest in a string of build-to-rent projects for Melbourne.
The tower was first planned to reach 13 storeys above largely low-rise Ormond, rising from a concrete platform the Andrews government built over the Frankston line train tracks when it removed the North Road level crossing in 2016.
The revised plans for the Ormond station development would rise to 10 storeys at North Road and six storeys elsewhere.
It was to have been the first example of value capture from the government’s multibillion-dollar level crossing removal program and one of the tallest residential buildings in Melbourne’s south-east.
But it was later shaved to 10 storeys after the Coalition and the Greens joined forces to block the development in a rare parliamentary revocation of a state government planning approval.
The proposal includes 288 build-to-rent homes and a supermarket.
The purpose-built concrete platform above and next to Ormond station remains empty despite a new planning permit being granted to developer DealCorp in 2021.
But DealCorp now hopes to revive the project as a mixed-use development with almost 300 rental apartments, office spaces, a ground floor supermarket and several smaller stores.
Amended plans lodged with the Department of Planning last year and obtained by The Age reveal DealCorp wants to build a 288-unit building which would rise to 10 storeys above Ormond station on busy North Road and to six storeys where it extends into quieter residential parts behind the station. The development would have 514 parking spaces and 289 bicycle parking spaces.
DealCorp director David Kobritz said construction cost increases of about 50 per cent over the past few years had rendered the original build-to-sell project financially unviable. Trying to sell the apartments to investors or owner-occupiers could take years in the current market, increase costs and jeopardise the project’s viability yet again, Kobritz said.
“So we think build-to-rent is the correct option,” he said.He hoped construction on the project, which would cost more than $200 million, would begin this year and be completed by 2027.
Melbourne’s apartment market is unique among Australian cities in that the number of new build-to-rent developments in the pipeline has overtaken traditional build-to-sell developments. Kobritz said this was due to rising costs and flat sales.
The City of Glen Eira opposed the original “sky tower” in 2016 and the scaled-down 10-storey version approved in 2018. But current mayor Simone Zmood said it made sense to support population growth where there was easy access to public transport, shops and services.
“We think it’s important to get the balance right between the inevitability of population growth – and with it, higher density housing – and the neighbourhood character our residents know and love. This is what we’ve done through our structure plans, created through conversations with our community,” Zmood said.
She said the Ormond station proposal was being led by the Victorian government, with minimal council involvement.
Ormond was not included among the first 25 train and tram zone activity centres where the state government is poised to seize planning controls to encourage greater housing density.
Liton Kamruzzaman, an associate professor of transport at Monash University, has studied how the government’s level crossing removal program has changed land use around each site.
Kamruzzaman said the program had not led to a housing boom so far and was a “missed opportunity in terms of urban regeneration”.
Analysis of land use changes at 13 level crossing removal sites found a significant increase in commercial activity within 100 metres of each site, a significant increase in open space and a rise in car parking availability. But the proportion of residential land had fallen almost 30 per cent.
“There is a missed opportunity because huge investment is going on there on the transport side; with a little bit of impetus from the government on the land use side you would see much more integrated development,” Kamruzzaman said.
The Monash University study found that level crossing removals in which the tracks were lowered, such as at Ormond station, produced the least change in land use, while elevated tracks spurred more.
“Overall, the [removal program] resulted in more open spaces, parking and commercial land, while the relative proportion of residential areas showed a pattern of reduction,” the study said.
“In addition, the [program] achieved an increase in pedestrian and cycling lanes to replace railroads on the ground. These changes are expected to enhance the living environment for residents around the case sites.”
COMMENTS
Whilst this has been a long time coming, we note the following:
- No mention of social housing in a 288 apartment development
- No mention of rental period, nor the concessions provided to these tenants – ie as with the Caulfield Village development, only a ten year lease and only 20% reduction on current rental costs.
- No mention of the fact that abutting properties on the western side are under a heritage overlay and have an SBO running right through the area.
- The vast majority of properties along the neighbouring streets are single storey which would now be confronted with heights of 6 to 10 storeys.
Below we show the current zonings and the flooding overlay –

January 7, 2025 at 11:38 AM
Time to get the heck out of Glen Eira
January 7, 2025 at 11:53 AM
Szmood’s comments are a serious worry. Are we getting a mayor who is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the admin?
Back in 2017 councillors voted for a maximum of eight storeys. The Libs eventually decided that ten storeys would be okay. Esakoff wanted no more than six storeys.
Ormond doesn’t have a structure plan or even an urban design framework. Yet she craps on about this and how the structure plans were introduced with community input. I’d say that most residents were opposed to all the structure plans and certainly for the housing strategy which by the way Szmood voted against herself.
I do worry about the future of this council and how much it will bend and grovel before the state gov. What’s required is a mayor who stands up for the community.
January 9, 2025 at 3:18 PM
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” That quote from 1st Baron Acton encapsulates much of what is wrong with the nexus between State Government and Development Industry. When the original change to the Glen Eira Planning Scheme was made, the government threw a full-on tanty when Parliament revoked it. Parliament pointed out that the proposed height hadn’t been subject to community consultation. These days the government doesn’t even need to make changes to planning schemes if it chooses to declare whatever it wants to be a “Major Project” [sic]. Hence Queens Ave Shared User Path was treated as a Major Project. Until such time as transparency and accountability are restored to the planning system we should be very very wary of whatever the State Government and its acolytes attempt to impose.
January 9, 2025 at 3:29 PM
Some of Cr Zmood’s comments deserve closer scrutiny. Structure plans get created despite community input, not in conjunction with community input. I tried to find out why their official document for my area made certain specious claims. Council officers agreed with me but couldn’t say who was responsible for including those claims. There was simply no record control but apparently many people wrote different incongruent pieces of it. I’ve had my share of run-ins with Council, when they admitted they “didn’t have the money” to make a parking change safely and in compliance with standards. Council has also voted to reject amenity standards for those poor suckers living in the areas it has unilaterally decided to target for high-rise development (towers). It has ignored its own Heritage Overlays. It has encouraged the use of private motorized transport and on-street parking. It has disagreed with VCAT when not even VCAT could countenance a particular development on Hawthorn Rd that Council supported. The reason we have our horrific zoning system is to shaft a [growing] portion of the population to protect the rest. That is utterly undemocratic and Councillors should resign if they don’t believe in treating people fairly and equitably.
January 10, 2025 at 2:59 PM
The vehicle traffic along Royal Ave, which runs along the east side of the rail line and changes its name to Katandra Rd at the Gunn bridge underpass, has already seen a large increase in traffic since the level crossing removal works were completed.
Placing something like 8 stories of residential and 1 or 2 retail and a few levels of car parking above Ormond Station will turn Katandra road and Royal Ave from a quiet backwater into a busy throughway.
There is no sustainable thinking or living planning principles being exercised here. It’s just a chicken hearted Labor Governments caving in to the new found dogma “build to rent” being handed to them their developer mates.
The residents around here have put up with mass disturbance with road and street closures, noise, pollution, shop being shutdown for the best part of 4 or 5 years now, starting with level crossing removal at North Road.
When local resident thought it was all over with the reopening of Glen Huntly rails station mid 2024, council decided to upgrade the road intersection at Gunn Bridge underpass on Royal Ave shutting down this intersection for a good few more months in 2024. We residents have clocked-up goodness knows how many kilometres in very long detour to simply get home.
This is urban development gone truly absolutely mad.
If Labor cottons on to the fact that the space above railway lines can be built over and then built on. We are well and truly rooted. Ormond station maybe the future of things.
It not hard to see this idea becoming a gift of free land to their developer mates. It just a matter of space and concrete.