The site is a wedge shaped parcel that is serviced by a single width crossover in an adjacent parcel, that parcel is located adjacent to the northern boundary of the site.
The site has frontage at its eastern boundary of 60.35 metres to Main Road, zoned Transport Road Zone 2 an arterial road and which is a State Road.
The width of the road reserve at the site’s southern boundary is approximately 1.0 metres, and 3.4 metres at the site’s northern boundary.
The site’s western boundary addresses the railway corridor and is 65 metres long.
The site’s northern boundary is 35.03 metres long.
The site’s southern boundary is significantly shorter.
There is land to the west of the railway corridor covered by Land Subject to Inundation Overlay.
West of the railway corridor is a natural watercourse, Diamond Creek, which regularly floods.
The site is a sloping site, with a fall of approximately 5.0 metres from the northeastern section towards the southeastern section.
The site is zoned General Residential Zone 1 in Clause 32.08 of the Planning Scheme. The proposal responds poorly to the purpose, specifically “To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.”
The proposal responds poorly to the Clause 32.08-13 matters, which I will quote:
Non-residential use and development
■Whether the use or development is compatible with residential use.
■Whether the use generally serves local community needs.
■The scale and intensity of the use and development.
■The design, height, setback and appearance of the proposed buildings and works.
■The proposed landscaping.
■The provision of car and bicycle parking and associated accessways.
■Any proposed loading and refuse collection facilities.
■The safety, efficiency and amenity effects of traffic to be generated by the proposal.
The General Residential Zone Clause 32.08 and Clause 42.03 Significant Landscape Overlay were part of the planning scheme amendment C118nill which was gazetted in 7 July 2022.
The proposal fails to respond appropriately to the Clause 42.03 Significant Landscape Overlay matters within the Planning Scheme.
The proposal responds negatively to the matters in the Schedule to Clause 42.03.
The height, scale and massing of the proposal will create unacceptable visual bulk.
The height, scale and massing of the proposal will alter the bushland character of the gateway of the Eltham Town Centre.
The height, scale and massing of the proposal fails to respond appropriately to the topography of the site and the surroundings.
The height, scale and massing of the proposal will dominate the surroundings and respond negatively to:
the surrounding context;
Statement of nature and key elements of landscape (Schedule to Cl 42.03)
Landscape character objectives to be achieved (Schedule to Cl 42.03)
The proposal responds negatively to the Decision Guidelines in the Schedule to Clause 42.03, particularly below.
The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under Clause 42.03, in addition to those specified in Clause 42.03 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority:
■Whether the proposed development conforms with the preferred character of the area as stated in the relevant Shire of Nillumbik Neighbourhood Character Study brochure for the area.
■The scale, shape, bulk, design (including height and siting) and external finishes of any buildings and works and the impacts of these on the landscape qualities of the area.
■Whether the proposal retains existing high canopy trees, keeps buildings below the predominant tree canopy height and is sited below the ridge line.
■Whether the topography of the locality and the predominant tree canopy height enables higher buildings to be accommodated within the landscape and that the proposed development does not detrimentally affect long distance vistas and views, including views across river valleys.
■Whether the proposed development minimises excavation.
■The extent to which the proposal maintains the vegetation dominated streetscapes and vistas, including views across river valleys.
■The need to ensure new buildings and works, including driveways fit within the landscape and topography of the land.
■Whether front fences are commonly provided in the street and the style of fence.
■The need for additional landscaping and screen planting to maintain the existing and preferred landscape qualities identified in the Neighbourhood Character Study.
■Whether the proposed development contributes to increased housing diversity within proximity to the Eltham Major Activity Centre and transport nodes/routes.
The proposal seeks to create/alter access in a Road Zone. The proposal fails to demonstrate proper management of vehicle entry and egress.
The proposal creates unacceptable risks for pedestrian and road user conflicts, and collisions and is not an acceptable planning outome.
The proposal is subject to referral to the Head, Transport for Victoria under the law in Peninsula Blue Developments Pty Ltd v Frankston CC (Red Dot) [2015] VCAT 571.
I would anticipate that Transport for Victoria will object to the proposal.
The proposal fails to respond appropriately to the Clause 52.29 VPP Matters.
The proposal fails to respond appropriately to the Clause 65 VPP Matters.
The proposal fails to respond appropriately to the Strategic Context.
The proposal fails to respond appropriately to the Shire of Nillumbik Neighbourhood Character Study, 2000.
The proposal is not an “acceptable planning outcome” when considered under the law in Knox City Council v Tulcany Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 375
On balance, the proposal is not just an inappropriate, but indeed a highly inappropriate planning outcome and the responsible authority is urged to refuse the granting of a permit.
