By Jim Mynard
INGLIS Road residents have won another round in their battle to have modifications made to a 40dwelling development at 50 Inglis Road, Berwick.
The proposal drew strong opposition from nearby residents, who claimed it would be an overdevelopment of the site.
Residents were upset because the plans cut traditional pedestrian walkways which created safe links throughout the wider area.
Residents raised thousands of dollars to fight the development and opposed it in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) after the proposal received City of Casey approval.
VCAT ruled against the City of Casey, and the developer, in turn, challenged the VCAT decision in the Supreme Court.
Residents again defended the action and the Supreme Court ordered that the VCAT decision should stand.
Meanwhile, the developer, Andrew Harmon, submitted a revised application to the City of Casey.
The council is expected to hear the application next month.
Mr Harmon said he would still run with the new application before the council because it had changes to the original plan.
He said he preferred not to comment on the issue at this stage except to say his company was proud of its developments.
“People are asking for security and we are building what people are asking for and buying,” he said.
Berwick resident John Cunningham said the new application was virtually identical to the original.
“This now depends on how the council planners treat it,” he said.
Mr Cunningham said the new application addressed the pedestrian access, but not enough to allow a suitable walkway for the general public. “The area has no similar developments to the one proposed with so many units packed into such a small space,” he said.
“We are prepared to go back to VCAT if it is not done properly.”
This longstanding issue for the developer and residents stems from highdensity development springing up in lowdensity areas.
Residents have argued that the development was out of character with their environment, had inadequate setbacks, was an overdevelopment, caused overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of vegetation, allowed inadequate space for landscaping, created excessive traffic within the road network and blocked the existing pedestrian walking system.
They argued the land should be used for a residential subdivision similar to adjoining properties, and a ‘normal’ residential development could preserve the pedestrian walkways and links with small parks nearby.
During his assessment, VCAT member John Bennet acknowledged the proposal assisted with the diversity of housing design.
However, he said the main issue of dispute concerned the inappropriate design response, intensity of development, loss of vegetation, traffic generation and failure to include pedestrian links to the existing walkway system.
“The proposal did not fully respond to the neighbourhood character,” he said.
