The following meeting notification, prepared by residents opposing the Virginia Estate Development, is provided to highlight a Planning Conference this coming Monday (22/6/2015).  Late notice we know but apparently few residents are aware of the significance of this proposed change.

Flyer T

This Planning Conference is related to Planning Scheme Amendment C135 which “proposes to rezone part of the land to Commercial 1 to enable an integrated mixed use development over the entire site and amends Schedule 2 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO2) to enable a broader mix of uses across the site”.

Basically, the Amendment seeks to change the parts of the site currently zoned Commercial 2 (ie C2 – Commercial/Retail uses only) to a Commercial 1 (ie C1 – Commercial/Retail and Residential uses) zoning.  In lay terms, the significance of this rezoning is that it clears the way for the development to comprise 4,600 dwellings with limited commercial/retail accommodation being provided*.  Thus the opportunity to live and work locally will be significantly reduced (decreased employment opportunities) and will add to the above adverse amenity impacts of the current development plan.

Impacted residents are urged to

  • lodge an objection (preferably by email, given the time constraints) to record their views and ensure they are “kept in the loop” as the Amendment approval process continues, and
  • if possible, attend the Planning Conference.

An objection guideline, prepared by the residents, is as follows:

Planning Scheme Amendment C135 – Virginia Estate Rezoning

I wish to lodge a formal objection to the above amendment and request several changes to the amendment.

  • 4,600 units represents an over development of the site and should be substantially reduced.  This can be achieved by changing the zoning to General Residential instead of Commercial 1 as proposed.
  • the area is poorly serviced by public transport and will result in more traffic chaos and until this is addressed the development should not go ahead.
  • Setbacks to East Boundary Road should not be reduced.  They should be increased.
  • Ten storey apartment towers do not fit in with neighbourhool character.   No higher than three storeys to be built.
  • A 20 metre wide linkway is not adequate open space provision and the amendment needs to be altered to reflect an appropriate land contribution from the developer.
  • Size of the apartments should be larger than planned.
  • That the developer be required to pay more than 5.7% in an open space levy.


* The balance between the two (ie. commercial/retail vs. residential), being determined by the developer’s assessment of the most viable option as the project progresses – as shown by the Caulfield Village Development, residential accommodation returns a higher yield than commercial/retail accommodation.

Comments are closed.