Despite council officers recommending councillors vote in favour of the development, all councillors deemed the large-scale housing complex an overdevelopment of the site and voted unanimously to reject the proposal. 

In front of a packed council chamber on Wednesday night, Councillor Samantha McIntosh put forward an alternate motion to refuse a planning permit for the application. 

Her motion was based on the cultural and historic character of the area.

It followed a series of public submissions by nearby residents, including Wendouree Parade resident Paul Donoghue.

Mr Donoghue, who lives directly next door to the development, said it would be a “hideous intrusion” on a “tranquil and happy neighbourhood”.

His concerns were echoed by Dawsons Avenue resident Neville Richard, who said nearby streets did not have the infrastructure to cope with an influx of traffic.   

The proposal by developer Vernon Property Trust included 13 two-bedroom dwellings and a basement car park at 203 Wendouree Parade. 

Plans for the development proposed a combination of two and three-level sections that would sit on the corner of Dawsons Avenue. 

Fifty-five objections were submitted during the public exhibition process, with many citing concerns about increased traffic, over-development and loss of neighbourhood character.  

Speaking on behalf of the developer, architect Peter Vernon said the land had been in his family for more than 85 years.

Mr Vernon said the group believed the development reflected the council’s desire for modest housing growth and housing diversity in the city.

Mr Vernon said that only 15 per cent of the total development site was three levels high, with the rest only standing two storeys.  

He said the site had no heritage overlays and minimal planning restrictions.

Mr Vernon said he believed it offered a rare opportunity for people who could not afford to enter the competitive Lake Wendouree real estate market, including retired couples looking to downsize and single people.

He said the group had been in discussions with the council about the future of the site since late 2013 and had strived to reach the best outcome.

Cr Des Hudson supported Cr McIntosh’s motion due to the higher number of objections submitted by nearby residents and concerns with the height and density of the development. 

But Cr Hudson said he hoped the developers would submit a new model that the local community would support. 

“With any new development we need to make sure that development is appropriate and does not upset all residents living in the street,” Cr Hudson said.

“With so many objections, in this case, it’s just not the right fit.”

melissa.cunningham@fairfaxmedia.com.au