Enclave hopes dashed again

By Jim Mynard
THE Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has put another stopper on a proposed 38unit enclave development at 50 Inglis Road, Berwick.
The application has been subject to a series of objections from nearby residents on the basis of it being out of character with the area, having inadequate setbacks, being an over development, causing overlooking and loss of privacy, leading to loss of vegetation, inadequate space for landscaping and loss of linear pathways.
The matter was before VCAT member John Bennett in June, 2004, then before the Supreme Court, and before Mr Bennett again in February this year.
Mr Bennett has now upheld a City of Casey decision to refuse a permit for the development.
While there are other contentious issues concerning the site, the main reason for the refusal appears to be that it truncates treasured walking tracks throughout the area.
Mr Bennett said he had dealt with the matter previously, but was still not satisfied that the latest proposal was site responsive or that it had addressed the failure to provide pedestrian connectivity through the site.
“It is an improvement over the first proposal, in that it allows residents on the site to access the surrounding open space network, but does not provide connectivity for surrounding residents,” he said.
Mr Bennett said there was considerable policy support for creation of the open space network to provide options for movement of people through the urban areas.
He said future residential development on the site must allow for connectivity in a practical and convenient manner across the site.
“I accept that there may be a cost in providing that connectivity, but I do not accept that land values should drive or outweigh land use outcomes,” he said.
Mr Bennett said in his order that he took into consideration the council’s reasons for refusing the application.
He said these were:
That the proposal did not respond to the physical features of the site, which was symptomatic of an over development of the site;
That it is not respectful of the character of the surrounding area, particularly in relation to the loss of virtually all existing vegetation on the site;
That it would severely restrict pedestrian connectivity through the neighbourhood particularly for residents in the general area;
That it would create a gated community, which was undesirable given the character of the surrounding area.
Mr Bennett said his considerations did not mean that a mediumdensity development of mixed one and twostorey dwellings was not suitable for the site.
He said residents should not expect that a redesigned proposal would necessarily result in a residential subdivision similar to that existing to the east and west of the site.
“The key issue is that any new proposal is a design that actually responds to the specific site context,” he said.