Too Big: VCAT Refuses North Melb Neighbourhood Centre
A second attempt to win approval for a commercial development on a site in a north-eastern Melbourne suburb has been knocked back and labelled “jarring and discordant” by the tribunal that rejected it.
Plans to build a neighbourhood development comprising a 96-place childcare centre, medical centres, gyms, a pool and cafe at Ivanhoe East were proposed by TLC Melbourne—a vehicle of site owner TLC Healthcare, an aged-care specialist with a $490-million development pipeline.
The developer has sought a permit for the site at 321 Lower Heidelberg Road and 1 Maltravers Road, 12km north-east of Melbourne CBD, previously.
Those plans, for a five-storey aged-care premises, were refused by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal after a refusal by the Banyule City Council in 2022.
The proposal for the 6293sq m megasite included the demolition of all existing buildings aside from a Gothic Revival church building fronting King Street, which would have been converted into a gallery.
A part-two, part-three-storey main building was planned for above two levels of basement parking.
Going back to the drawing board and adopting smaller scale buildings, TLC submitted its updated proposals to the Banyule council in late 2023.
After a public notice of the development, 140 objections were received and the council refused a planning permit for the site, arguing an inconsistency with the zone purpose and neighbourhood character, as well as loss of vegetation and inadequate loading and unloading.
TLC submitted amended plans prior to the hearing in December, which was published this month,
It lowered the height of the site, altered the architectural design, and included an unloading area within the basement carpark.
But council and other objectors maintained their opposition to the development.
In the latest appeal, VCAT considered whether the proposals provided an acceptable planning outcome and acceptably responded to neighbourhood character, and the effects on amenity and traffic.
The tribunal agreed that the medical and childcare centres were needed, with a shortfall in childcare places expected over the next 10 years.
The council had argued that there was no strong need for the five small-format gym and fitness facilities the development proposed, however the tribunal disagreed, saying that demand was expected to grow based on population and demographic forecasts.
However, the tribunal said that the overall intensity in both use and built form was “too great” for the location, recommending a smaller scale and more modest buildings.
It agreed with the council’s criticism of its “homogenous” design, calling it “unduly prominent, jarring and discordant”.
VCAT’s criticisms also included unacceptable acoustic impacts, light pollution and overall intensity of use.
The tribunal affirmed the decision of the Banyule council and refused a planning permit for the site.
