By Callum Ludwig
A planning permit application for a multi-million dollar dwelling in Coldstream has been approved by Yarra Ranges Councillors after a lengthy debate at the Tuesday 12 September Council meeting.
The application for the 193 Victoria Road property was first submitted in December 2021 with plans including a helipad, golf course, function centre, indoor recreation centre and restaurant, with the scope since reduced to a residential dwelling only.
The revised application still includes a number of ‘atypical’ features of a residential dwelling, with the Council planning report noting a bar, cinema, art gallery, a 19-car garage, basketball court, separate male and female toilets change rooms and bowling alleys as well as golf cart parking, a winter garden and a roof garden.
Coldstream resident Ms Price’s property is 924 metres away from 193 Victoria Road and she spoke in objection to the application, supported by some other neighbours in attendance, and said they are showing strong opposition to this particular planning application.
“Where it is said to be a dwelling, you are being absolutely misled as to what this planning permit is about… there are a number of exceptionally unusual features, ” she said.
“Why on earth are there men’s and women’s bathrooms attached to each of these entertainment features, features that you would see if you went to any one of the wedding venues further out in the Yarra Valley,”
“This car gallery, apart from being completely absurd, 19 cars with a viewing window that you can see from outside of the house, is exactly the type of space which without those cars is a wedding venue.”
In consideration of what objectors raised, the planning report identifies additional land uses of the original application are no longer on the plans and not to be considered by the Council. If they were to be proposed again at a later date, they would need to be reassessed on their planning merits.
Ms Price said it is of cold comfort to residents to say if what they suspect does come true, then there’ll be an investigation.
“By then it is too late because the impact on us will be irreparable,”
“You need to naturally know who is the applicant, the true person or persons who seek this permit to be issued because at the moment it’s all smoke and mirrors.”
The application was submitted by consultancy firm Urbis on behalf of asset management company APH Holding. The applicants named in the original company are a Ms M Bateman and a J Govenlock, likely to be Urbis Town Planner Jamie Govenlock. No applicants or representatives from APH Holding or Urbis spoke at the Tuesday 12 September meeting.
When contacted, Urbis confirmed that they formerly represented the applicant for this application but at the time of the meeting, no longer represented the applicant and were unable to comment. APH Holding was also contacted for comment.
Deputy Mayor and Melba Ward Councillor Sophie Todorov asked Yarra Ranges Council’s Director of Planning and Sustainable Futures Kath McClusky if the potential for a disingenuous application should hold any weight in their decision.
Ms McClusky said Council’s officers must consider the application that’s in front of them.
“We note that the initial application had a number of elements to it, it has been amended and the amendment request is for a dwelling so the officers have to consider it as a dwelling under the Act,” she said.
“In terms of who the applicant is, Urbis lodged the application so from a planning perspective we don’t really take that into consideration who that it might be, we can’t look at it too much into that.”
Streeton Ward Councillor Andrew Fullagar asked Ms McClusky to clarify that there is no rule that prevents the inclusion of features such as the bowling alleys, cigar rooms or team rooms.
Ms McClusky said that is correct but it’s to be used for the people living in the house.
“It’s once that you have the broader community accessing facilities on site that that’s where it becomes a problem,” she said.
“But if you wanted to have a cigar room, a movie theatre in your home, that is permissible.”
Chirnside Ward Councillor Richard Higgins asked what’s preventing the applicant from reapplying and expanding back to the golf course and the other features once it is built.
“There’s nothing prohibiting them from reapplying, but it would be subject to a new assessment and to a further decision in the Chamber,” Ms McClusky said.
“There’d be a number of other challenges that they would need to overcome and a lot of information, I suspect that may be part of the reason why they abandoned part of their initial proposal, but again, I would be speculating.”
Chandler Ward Councillor David Eastham asked what the process would be if the applicant was to start using the property commercially without reapplying.
“We would start through activating compliance action, we would write to them, we would ask them to show calls to explain what’s been doing on-site,” Ms McClusky said.
“We would advise that they need to bring the land into compliance and if all else fails and that doesn’t happen, well, we end up in court.”
Further questions discussed the potential impact of noise pollution and the effect on the landscape and amenity of the area. Due to the property being used for an existing dwelling, there was no need for a farm management plan or a supporting agricultural piece for the property.
An amended motion was put forward with two additional conditions relating to lighting, limiting the uplighting of the walls and impacts of light spill.
After putting forward the amended motion, Council Mayor and O’Shanassy Ward Councillor Jim Child said they are going to make a decision tonight and it’s to support his motion.
“I think this is going to become an issue for our compliance people because this is the only way that this building can be actually supervised once it’s built, that it’s built for a dwelling purpose and the dwelling purpose only,” he said.
Lyster Ward Councillor Johanna Skelton, Cr Fullagar and Cr Higgins all added that they would be supporting the motion, with Cr Fullagar ‘reluctantly supporting’ it, Cr Skelton saying that they ‘are not here to vote with our conscience and our heart on planning matters’ and Cr Higgins saying he’d ‘be not doing my job properly’ if he didn’t support it.
Walling Ward Councillor Len Cox OAM was the only councillor to vote against the motion and said prior to the vote that the application didn’t seem to be right to him.
“I’ve been looking at this for a few days and for the life of me, I’d love to be able to agree with the motion that’s before us, but I just can’t,” he said.
“It just seems to me wrong when a planner has someone come along with an application for a house and no matter what it looks like, no matter how big it is, if he says it’s a house, then it’s got to be looked at as a house,”
“I struggle to believe it’s just a house, it’s disappointing that the applicant didn’t come in because there was a lot of questions we could have asked.”
