Application for Amended Development Plan - 2019
An amended development plan was lodged by Mecone Town Planning on behalf of Nan Xin Investment Browns Road Pty Ltd (Developer) for the former Clayton Primary School site at 29 Browns Road, Clayton.
This amendment application proposed to remove 7 visitor car spaces within the development, currently located within the basement of the apartment building. This will result in the total number of visitor car parking spaces reduced from 43 to 36.
The developer lodged a Failure to Determine application with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
In December 2019, the VCAT appeal was settled by consent order. This followed Council’s meeting in November, where it resolved to support the proposed amendment to the Development Plan to reduce 7 visitor car parking spaces within the basement, for the apartment component.
The hearing scheduled on 28 January 2020 is vacated.
Council sought community feedback on the Amended Development Plan proposal until Wednesday 23 October 2019 and received 3 community submissions.
For more information, see the report which Council considered prior to making its decision: Report to Council(PDF, 589KB)
View VCAT's decision here: VCAT decision on 29 Browns Road Clayton.(DOCX, 35KB)
Approved documents
Below are the approved documents for the 29 Browns Road, Clayton Development Plan:
Approved Amended Development Plan(PDF, 13MB)
Approved Amended Traffic Impact Assessment(PDF, 5MB)
Original Approved Development Plan(PDF, 80MB)
Amended Planning Permit - Endorsed Plan(PDF, 645KB)
Amended Planning Permit(PDF, 89MB)
Background
Approved Proposal - 2017
At its meeting on 31 October 2017, Council issued a Planning Permit for a development on the former Clayton Primary School site in Browns Rd (Clayton), subject to conditions.
The planning permit allows for 221 dwellings, comprising 74 townhouses and 147 apartments (contained within four apartment buildings).
The approved proposal is generally in accordance with the development plan previously approved by Council in December 2016 (subject to modifications), which provided a broad master plan for how the site would be used and developed.
For more information, see the report which Council considered before making its decision: Report to Council meeting(PDF, 566KB)
To see the plans for this development, see the document which was submitted to Council: Plans for development 29 Browns Road(PDF, 27MB)
This application was exempt from public notification because it is generally in accordance with the approved development plan.
The applicant proposed a $65 million development which included:
- 74 townhouses (24 x 2 storey and 50 x 3 storey) adjacent to the northern, eastern and western boundaries. The townhouse dwelling mix will comprise of:
- 33 x 2 bedroom dwellings with single garage
- 1 x 2 bedroom plus study dwelling with single garage
- 32 x 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings with double garage
- 8 x 4 bedroom dwellings with tandem vehicle garage.
- 14 visitor car spaces adjacent to the townhouses
- Four apartment buildings each up to 4 storeys in height, with 147 apartments comprising of:
- 40 x 1 bedroom apartments
- 107 x 2 bedroom apartments.
- Basement car park providing 147 resident car paces ( 1 car space per apartment) and 22 dedicated visitor car spaces.
Approval of Development Plan
A development plan provides a broad master plan for how the site will be used and developed.
At its meeting on 13 December 2016, Council approved the development plan for housing on this site. Prior to approval, the submitted development plan was subject to community consultation and attracted 24 community submissions.
The development plan submitted to Council provided for 250 dwellings, comprising 172 apartments (over four storeys) and 78 two-three storey townhouses.
The development plan was approved, subject to the following modifications:
- Alternate townhouse pairs along the Browns Road frontage modified to provide the recessive/inverted massing break on the outer edge of the townhouses
- The main accessway/road reserve widened to a minimum width of 9.81m between Browns Road and the first intersecting street to provide for increased landscaping and footpath width at the main entrance to the development
- Vehicle priority established at each of the T-intersections with the main circulating road
- Measures to discourage vehicles parking in the dead-end section of laneways
- The main vehicle crossover/access point to Browns Road is designed as a driveway crossing
- Footpaths within the site having a minimum typical width of 1.4m
- The basement access ramp to be a minimum width of 6.0m to facilitate two-way access
- Of the 38 townhouses shown with tandem garage, 30 townhouses are to be increased in width to 6.7 metres and shown with a double garage to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The owner of the site was required to submit a more detailed planning permit application to Council.
The Amended Development Plans showing the required changes above were approved by Council officers on 27 June 2017. The endorsed development plan was for the construction of 246 dwellings.
In October 2017, a planning permit was issued for a development comprising 221 dwellings.
Here is the report which Council considered before making its decision: Report to Council(PDF, 605KB)
Submitted Development Plan
Here are the documents which were submitted to Council by the developer as part of the development plan application:
Development Plan (Part 1)(PDF, 8MB)
Development Plan (Part 2)(PDF, 13MB)
Landscape Plan (Appendix A)(PDF, 7MB)
Site Survey Plan (Appendix B)(PDF, 5MB)
Traffic Impact Report (Appendix C)(PDF, 5MB)
Environmentally Sustainable Design Report (Appendix D)(PDF, 5MB)
Stormwater Management Plan (Appendix E)(PDF, 5MB)
Waste Management Plan (Appendix F)(PDF, 2MB)
Development Plan Overlay
When the State Government sold the site in 2014, it was sold with a Development Plan Overlay (DPO) on the site. Under a DPO, residents do not have the right to appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
It was for this reason that Council opposed the former State Government's decision to place a DPO on the site. Council asked the former State Government to reconsider its decision to impose a Development Plan Overlay on thhe site. However, the former State Government proceeded to sell the site with a DPO in place.