A contentious creek-side development in Eureka will now be heard at the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal, following City of Ballarat’s approval.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The two-storey, 16 dwelling development at 312 Specimen Vale South received 47 objections when the application was first lodged.
But despite calls for it to be considered in City of Ballarat council chambers, a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit was issued by council planning officers in March.
Resident Kevin Murphy said the result would be increased street traffic, and felt disappointed council had decided against taking the issue to a meeting.
“Our street has 11 houses, but they want to put 16 more in,” he said.
“It’s going to more than double the amount of traffic.
“We believe that council have not followed due process … we find it extraordinary that this has happened.”
An application for the site was first lodged in 2016 by R and R Planning and Development Consultants.
City of Ballarat director of infrastructure and environment Terry Demeo said the number of dwellings had been negotiated down from 18, with the proposal now “consistent with the existing neighbourhood character and minimised impacts to adjoining landowners".
“The application was ultimately dealt with under delegation, and a notice of decision has been issued,” he said.
Specimen Vale South resident Jeff Muscat said there was concerns around flooding and properties being overlooked by the 6.1 metre development.
“We’re open to something being on the block … but not to the volume and the type of housing they’ve proposed,” he said.
The 6200 square block sits behind a row of houses.
In January 2017, a City of Ballarat spokeswoman told The Courier that mediation between objectors and the developer was “unfeasible”, and the application would have to go before councillors.
Mr Muscat said more than 20 residents registered to speak and ask questions at mediation, with only 60 minutes for them to do so.
“To me, the word mediation is not what we got. Half an hour of it was the developers explaining point of view, and felt we didn’t have an opportunity.”
A 2004 proposal for the site was knocked back by City of Ballarat but was later approved by VCAT.
The development was ultimately dropped by the builder.
Council officers have requested that VCAT convene proceedings in Ballarat rather than Melbourne, due to the advocacy of objectors.
