Development by the book

Dual Occ Debate Continues
To read the full story click on the TITLE above.


By Kath Gannaway

29th September 2009 02:00:22 AM

---

HEALESVILLE planning and building consultant Vari Perez has moved to address what she says are misconceptions about in-fill development in Coldstream.

The Mail reported last week that the Coldstream Resident Action Group had been formed, following two community meetings, to oppose the expansion of dual-occupancy development in the Maroondah Highway housing estate.

Ms Perez of MAP Building Consultant Services represented Crossman Investments in October last year in a successful appeal to VCAT against the Shire of Yarra Ranges. The shire had refused a permit for a second dwelling on a Belchester Avenue property.

She has six more development permit applications lodged on behalf of three property owners.

Ms Perez said the decision by VCAT member Dr Silvia Mainwaring provided clarity on many of the issues residents were concerned about. Dr Mainwaring found that dual occupancy on the Belchester site “falls short of being a medium density proposal”.

She said she did not believe the case would set a precedent for inappropriate expansion stating that if all the potential dual occupancy sites were to be developed, the maximum increase in households would be around 25 per cent.

Ms Perez said fears of large-scale unit development were unfounded. “No developer in his right mind is going to knock down 30 or 40 year old houses to build units,” she said.

She said there were other factors that would limit development. “Half the blocks are single dwelling only and the others, those available for residential purposes, are the potential in-fill development areas.”

Ms Perez said the requirement for a 1/400 ratio meant that blocks of 750 square metres were not suitable. “The blocks range from 750 square metres to 1200 with most around the 750 to 900, so some can be done and some can’t,” she said.

She said claims that covenants had been changed or removed from properties were incorrect. “I have searched the covenants and 60 (blocks) have never had covenants on them,” Ms Perez said.

She said at least half the properties in the Coldstream residential area in question are restricted by covenant to one dwelling.

“The other half of Coldstream, with the exception of those 60 or so lots without covenants, has the other covenant ‘use for residential purposes’ which allows for medium density development,” she said.

On the shire’s objection that the application was inconsistent with neighbourhood character, Dr Mainwaring found “the proposal does not challenge the backyard character of the area” and noted many properties had a number of outbuildings and sheds.