By Renee Wood
The planning permit for a $3 million development in Healesville’s main street has been deferred with objectors and councillors raising concerns with the planning permit and a lack of consultation between property owners.
The permit for 272 Maroondah Highway, Healesville is for a multi-storey development of two retail premises, three dwellings, and reduction in carparking requirements.
Three people spoke in objection to permit’s approval saying there has been a lack of consultation with abutting property owners and there would be issues with the allocation of three car parks for future residents in the new building.
Owner of 244 Maroondah Highway, Lawrence Paratz, said there has been no approach for consultation between the applicant and himself – despite being immediately impacted.
Mr Paratz said the two properties share a building wall, a common area of car parking and his property’s stormwater drainage supports the neighbouring site.
“There has not been a single phone call, single email, single discussion despite us having enormous knowledge of the site,” Mr Paratz said.
“I and we are not opposed to reasonable development on the site, but we certainly seek refinement of the proposal and its development conditions to reflect realities on the ground.”
Ben Arnold, owner of My Little Kitchen, which leases of Mr Paratz, said he provided the architect with contact details for Mr Paratz.
Mr Arnold also raised concerns that isolating three car parks for future residents will have a significant affect on deliveries and customers to his business.
“That carparking in the approved planning will essentially cut off two car parking spaces at direct access to the rear of my property,” Mr Arnold said.
“Now that is delivery of all goods into my property, that is also staff access, rear access for any of my guests that arrive with dogs. We can not park cars there – we won’t be able to open the gate, the gate is quite large you can not have car parking there.”
Concerns were also raised about the multi storey site overshadowing the café’s court yard.
Marius Vogel spoke for the proposal as the town planner who submitted the application for the owners of the site.
Mr Vogel said the owners are a local family that reside in Healesville – and they are very much in support of what the town has to offer.
“They recognise that there is a shortage of housing in Healesville so when they saw an opportunity to redevelop this site… they wanted to have the opportunity for two shops and three new apartments,” Mr Vogel said.
Mr Vogel also agreed that contact was made through the café however, no further contact was made to the property owners either side of the buildings.
“This project has gone through extensive review, in fact 9 months of coordination with council planning department,” he said.
Acoustic, traffic sustainability and heritage reports and input were also conducted through the planning permit.
Councillors were concerned over the lack of consultation and discussion between the property owners and queried council officers over the car parking, shared wall, drainage and overshadowing issues.
Officers replied that council’s assessment has approved the three car parking directly behind subject land and won’t impede the access for delivery on the neighbouring properties. Shared wall needs to be resolved in any building permits and council’s judgement on the overshadowing has been assessed that it won’t cause an unreasonable detriment to the other property.
Drainage would also need to be resolved as part of the building permit separately.
Councillor Fiona McAllister moved the deferral motion until Tuesday 22 November council meeting to allow for further investigations into the concerns raised by objectors regarding impacts on surrounding business owners.
“I have been overwhelmed, astounded by the lack of consultation with the abutting business owner on this particular application,” Cr McAllister said.
“To determine a planning application that will establish a civil dispute between two parties when there is a party wall and a shared car park and conversations are yet to take place as much as I feel it is not appropriate in the context of a planning application, I think we absolutely have to defer this.
“The only logically thing for us to do tonight seems to be defer this decision for a month, I hope a lot of things happen in this month.”
Councillors approved the deferral motion unanimously.
Mayor Jim Child did raise that this would create a lapse in council not making a decision during the recommended 60 days which would allow the applicant to take the matter to VCAT.
