Issue 56 | The Property Development Review

THE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

MINISTER APPROVES BRIGHTON MASTERPLAN AHEAD OF APPEAL

Author: Marisa

Wikramanayake Urban Developer

Both an application for development of the site and one for subdivision were rejected by the City of Bayside Council.

Developer Golden Age Group has won planning approval for a masterplan project in Melbourne’s Brighton from the state’s planning minister ahead of its appeal being heard.

decision was announced earlier this month. Carr Architects designed the plans for the project. The 32,926sq m site will be divided into 14 individual lots including a super lot with 83 new homes. Golden Age paid $100 million for the site, formerly home to the Xavier College junior school, one of the city’s oldest private school, in June, 2022. An amendment to the original plans took one home off the plans and added a new pedestrian pathway on Harley Street at the request of the community. Golden Age development director Damien Hehir said the project would help hit housing targets set for councils by the Victorian government. “This development represents a pivotal step forward in providing much-needed housing in Brighton,” Hehir said. It is hoped that current Brighton residents will take the opportunity to downsize into new homes on the site when the project is completed. The state planning department has provided Golden Age Group with a notice of approval and construction is expected to begin as soon as final planning permits are in hand and regulatory approvals are completed. Golden Age Group said it intends to announce timelines and development phases during the next few months.

Official approval for the significant development project at 47 South Road was granted by Victorian planning minister Sonya Kilkenny. Beachside Brighton, one of the wealthiest and most desired suburbs in Melbourne, is 11km from the CBD. In December, 2023, the City of Bayside Council rejected Golden Age Group’s development and subdivision applications for the project—105 residents objected to the development application and 54 objected to the subdivision application. Concerns were raised about necessary upgrades to trunk infrastructure, noise levels and how the development would impact heritage-listed properties. The council’s planning committee said that the proposal failed to implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and Planning Policy Framework or abide by the Bayside Planning Scheme in terms of roof form, material diversity within the streetscape, respecting the neighbouring building forms and scale and facades. It also said that the proposal did not comply with public open space, diversity of homes, neighbourhood character, traffic outcomes, urban design outcomes and built form. The developer appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and a hearing had been expected to take place in June. However, Kilkenny exercised her right to call the project in for a determination by the Victorian Department of Transport and Planning. The

September / October 2024 – 51

Powered by