Archive: 5 Storey Retirement Village in Gisborne
Updated 17/2/07
Residents Jubilant As Five Storey Retirement Village in Gisborne Bites The Dust - For Now
(23/11/06 - P) Application to review Council's 2005 refusal finally withdrawn by developers.
Developers of a proposed large subdivision, and a 5 storey retirement home that would loom over Sankey Reserve in Gisborne, have withdrawn their VCAT application challenging Council's 2005 decision to refuse a planning permit. In what seems a step too far, the developers recently asked for yet another 24 week deferral of the review hearing, but VCAT has refused the request. The developers' latest deferral request defied an order given by Helen Gibson 12 weeks ago that there would be no more deferrals and the hearing would go ahead in December.
Objectors are jubilant at the result, which means that for now at least, the 5 storey proposal is dead. But as we all know, it could come back again.
The developer first applied for a hearing at VCAT almost 12 months ago. Objectors have been "totally upset" by what they see as the developer "messing" everyone around, beginning with the incomplete application originally accepted by VCAT, lack of notice to objectors, deferral requests and material not being circulated in accordance with VCAT requirements.
5 (FIVE) Storey Retirement Village In Gisborne Finally Goes To VCAT Hearing
(12/9/06 - P) Council refused this application almost a year ago and a VCAT application, lodged by the developers, has been hanging over objectors' heads pretty much ever since
There was a Directions Hearing at VCAT before Deputy President Helen Gibson on Friday 1st September to try and sort out what's going on with the application for a 5 (five) storey retirement village and subdivision on the Jacksons Creek escarpment overlooking Sankey Reserve in Gisborne. Council refused the application last October and the developers apparently lodged a 'half' application for review over Christmas ('half' because it seems the application was lodged without the required fee). Earlier this year the developers asked VCAT for a 24 week deferral of any hearing, apparently to get a clearer picture of Council's view on the future use of the land. VCAT allowed a 12 week deferral. The developers then asked for more time, and so the matter ended up at the Directions Hearing. Here's a report sent to MRRA by one of the objectors about proceedings at that hearing:
VCAT Directions Hearing 1/9/06. Retirement Village – Station Rd.
Before: Deputy President Helen Gibson.
Appearing –
Paul Townsend (for the developers)
Solicitor representing Council
Community objectors
Mr. Townsend told the Tribunal he had been having co-operative and informal talks with Council. Would like a hearing in 2007. When queried by DP Gibson on what the delay in progressing his application up till now had been, and why he was requesting a further delay, the answer was 'personal reasons' (apparently he is going overseas). On being asked by DP Gibson, Mr. Townsend also said the plans rejected by Council would not be amended before any VCAT hearing.
Council's solicitor advised Council is prepared to go to a hearing but wanted any hearing listed this year.
Objectors requested the application for review be dismissed.
Deputy President Gibson was not prepared to allow dismissal. After a short discussion, she ruled for a hearing at VCAT to commence on 4th December and pencilled in 5 days. She also requested that any expert witness reports for the December hearing be held at the Gisborne Service Centre rather than circulating them to all of the (80?) objectors. Click here to see the VCAT Directions decision.
Five Storey Retirement Village In Gisborne: VCAT Hearing To Be Put Off Six Months?
(9/5/06 - P) The VCAT hearing for this gargantuan proposal on the Jacksons Creek escarpment in Gisborne is due within a week Or is it?
MRRA has heard reports that the developer may be looking to put the whole thing off for another 6 months, even though this application has already been hanging around at VCAT for 6 months. At this stage we understand the reason for asking for a deferral is so the developer can better understand Council's vision for the site. Hmmm... A permit that issued best part of 20 years ago for this site approved relatively low density residential subdivision with strong restrictions on what could and couldn't be done in such a sensitive location. What the developer is presently looking for is a whole lot more development (high-rise and subdivision). We would have thought the original permit, and our last Council's refusal of the current proposal, set out in unambiguous terms a fairly consistent vision for the site. It couldn't be that our new Council is perhaps seen as a softer, pro-development option, could it? A Council that might overturn a long history of approving only careful development by going for what the developer wants? Surely not! We'll let you know if we hear any more.
5 (FIVE) Storey Proposal In Gisborne “Excellent” Says Cr. Henry Bleeck
(15/10/05 – P) Same Councillor says 4 houses on a lot in Romsey is ‘out of character’. Is there one rule for Gisborne, another for Romsey?
Cr Henry Bleeck went against the flow, at Council’s planning committee meeting on 12th October, as a 5 storey ‘active, over-55 retirees resort’ proposal was refused by Council on a 5 to 1 vote (Note: Crs. Dunn, Evans & Petrovich were absent). Cr. Bleeck’s comment in opposing the refusal was that the 5 storey proposal was “excellent” and “would give the town [Gisborne] a bit of character” which is “what it needs”. Cr. Bleeck earlier voted to refuse an application for 4 dwellings on a 1500 square metre lot in Romsey because it was ‘out of character’. In his comments, Cr. Bleeck also related the tale of his son asking where he would live if Council kept refusing development applications. In response Cr. Gee put the question, could there perhaps be one rule for Romsey and another for Gisborne? Cr. Guthrie offered advice that Cr. Bleeck’s son might like to consider living in the two storey unit developments that aren’t selling in Gisborne. Cr. Bleeck, who lives in Kyneton, is seeking re-election in the neighbouring East Ward, which includes Romsey (but not Gisborne).
MRRA Says:
This isn’t the first time Cr. Bleeck’s comments have puzzled MRRA. On 13th July, in opposing a motion to defer a decision on a New Gisborne development plan which was considered to have not adequately addressed traffic and drainage issues, Cr. Bleeck commented that to defer the plan was ‘slowing things down, that the applicant has been waiting for a decision, that Councillors are elected to make decisions, that this was another move to delay, to stop progress’. As Cr. Bleeck, if re-elected, would be party to Council decision for all parts of the Shire, it would be interesting to know now (before the Council election) which planning philosophy Henry would apply: that of ‘giving towns a bit of character’ with 5 storey proposals and not ‘stopping progress’ by deferring applications deemed inadequate, or would it be refusing proposals because they are out of character? Or, would ‘out of character’ refusals perhaps only apply in Romsey? Or perhaps Kyneton, where the Councillor lives? We’re confused….!
UPDATE 2 Is It Mitcham or Macedon Ranges? High Rise Proposed In Gisborne
(20/7/05 – P) Although the formal notice and exhibition period is over for this application, residents can still make a submission. Click here to see the exhibited plans.
MRRA Says:
The application for a ‘retirement village’ is part of a larger application for a 62 lot subdivision. The ‘retirement village’ occupies lots 1 – 10 and overlooks, and would form the new backdrop to, Sankey Reserve in the centre of Gisborne. The land proposed for high rise development is part of the Jacksons Creek escarpment which is a significant feature and a significant landscape within the Gisborne township. Lots proposed are as small as 650 square metres in area. Access roads from the development join Aitken Street where it is steep and narrow. If a safe way of joining a new, large subdivision and a five storey retirement village to Aitken Street can be found at this location, significant works would likely be involved in getting traffic safely onto and from Aitken Street.
MRRA would like to point out that the ‘high rise’ proposal couldn’t have been approved under the old Gisborne planning scheme, and that the subdivision as proposed shouldn’t be approved now because the lot sizes aren’t compatible with the Gisborne Outline Development Plan controls proposed for this land: the average area of all lots must not be less than 2000 square metres, the minimum area of any lot to be not less than 1500 square metres. Of course, the State government’s ResCode allows applications of this sort to be made, and approved. Where is our State level planning protection to shield us from urban over-development?
UPDATE 1 Is It Mitcham or Macedon Ranges?
(26/5/05 - P) An application has now been lodged with Council for a 5 storey retirement village in Gisborne. The applicant claims plans submitted to Council showing a 5 storey structure are an artist’s error, and the proposal is really for two separate structures of two and three storeys respectively.
MRRA Says:
Oops! If the plans are so wrong in a project touted to be worth $2 million, we can only wonder if everything else is in order with the application. Another concern is that according to local papers, the applicant says there’s a shortage of these facilities in the north-west of Melbourne, and beyond. Could applications have been mixed up? Perhaps the VERY SUBURBAN 5 storey proposal intended for the north-west of Melbourne has been mistakenly submitted in rural Gisborne, while the VERY RURAL proposal intended for ‘beyond’ has ended up somewhere in north-western suburbia?
We hear local MP Joanne Duncan’s office is being a little coy in dealing with community inquiries about the proposal. In answer to those who have asked MRRA questions: Yes, Council has to consider the application; Yes, Council has the option of refusing it; Yes, the application will be measured against Melbourne’s metropolitan development standards, not ours; and Yes, it could go to VCAT and be approved.
Unfortunately, the former absolute two storey height limit for buildings in Gisborne has been replaced in our current planning scheme by Melbourne’s planning controls, the same ones as apply to high-rise hot-spots, Camberwell Station and Mitcham. This is but another of those developments that can be applied for now that couldn’t be applied for under our ‘old’ planning schemes. We say bring those schemes back!
APPLICATION NOW IN Is It Mitcham or Macedon Ranges? ‘High Rise’ Proposed in Gisborne
(12/5/05 - P) Planning lunacy continues in Macedon Ranges with an application for a five (5) storey retirement home on the Jacksons Creek escarpment ridgeline about to be lodged.
Gisborne residents are steeling themselves for the fight to stop another piece of Melbourne 2030 metro madness being transplanted to the ‘village in a valley’. The five storey building would set a precedent in the Shire. In its proposed location it would tower over the township, impact on classified trees and overlook Gisborne’s key recreation area, Sankey Reserve.
MRRA Says:
And the Minister for Planning says we don’t have a problem? What’s the betting the applicant(s) try to justify this tower on the grounds that it’s located in an ACTIVITY CENTRE… In a rural Shire. In an area of State significance.