Eltham apartment block on Pryor and Arthur streets rejected following community opposition

A COUNCIL in Melbourne’s north has ignored staff advice and unanimously rejected a plan for more than 100 apartments in Eltham following overwhelming community opposition.

An artist’s impression of the development. Picture: Supplied

A LANDMARK decision was made to unanimously refuse a planning permit application for more than a hundred apartments in the heart of Eltham at a site earmarked for high density housing following overwhelming opposition.

Nillumbik Shire councillors this week knocked back an application for 105 apartments to be built across three separate buildings on 26-30 Pryor St and 27-29 Arthur St in Eltham, which varied between three and four stories.

An officer’s report tabled at the meeting recommended the permit be granted despite 176 written objections and an extensive 12-page list of conditions.

Officers made 30 recommendations which included the deletion of five apartments, waste collection to be provided through a private contractor, a landscape and tree management plan be provided following the removal of 48 on-site trees and that future owners would not be eligible for any resident or visitor parking permit scheme.

Nillumbik Council planning and services manager Jeremy Livingston said the design represented development that was not currently in existence anywhere else in Eltham or the shire but he said the proposed development “ticked all the boxes against the requirements of the planning scheme and represents the reality of central Eltham’s status as a metropolitan activity centre”.

The State Government previously introduced activity centre zones in Victoria to guide the use and development of land where large-scale urban change is expected to occur.

The proposed site is located within the Eltham Activity Centre, which has been identified as one of the primary locations to provide higher density housing within the Shire.

But objectors took aim at strategic merit for higher density development, neighbourhood character, congestion issues, pedestrian safety, sustainability, landscaping and waste collection.

Lynnsay Prunotto, from Lume Architecture in Eltham, said the “concrete, aluminium and glass building mass” did not consider the fundamentals of an energy efficient design.

“It has walls of glass facing east and west meaning air conditioning in the summer and heat loss in winter due to the poor insulation capacities of glass,” Ms Prunotto said.

“The back-to-back configuration of the apartments won’t allow for cross ventilation ... so no natural cooling.”

Carlotta Quinlan from the Eltham Gateway Action Group said the officer’s report was doing its utmost to justify an unsatisfactory proposal.

“Officers recommended that some of the apartments be reconfigured and that they must not increase the number of bedrooms but study nooks may be provided,” Ms Quinlan said.

“Everyone knows ‘study nooks’ is real estate speak for substandard bedrooms They can’t be advertised as bedrooms but can obviously be used as such.

“Guess what? They don’t require a car parking space.”

Ms Quinlan also questioned why a traffic upgrade at the Pryor St intersection, which had not yet been approved by VicRoads, was used as part-justification for the proposal.

Greg Johnson from Friends of Nillumbik said while the group recognised the need for higher density near community centres, the proposal was a “bulky”and “corporate-looking building”.

Mitzi Tuke said it would set a precedent for large scale development while Kate Milkins said the increased numbers would choke local roads.

Councillors Bronnie Hattam, Helen Coleman, Ken King, Anika Van Hulsen and Michael Young slammed the proposal and unanimously refused to grant a planning permit.

“There are so many onerous conditions that it’s enough for a refusal,” Cr Young said.

A spokesman from Taouk Architects, who did not want to be named, confirmed the application would be contested in VCAT but would not comment further.

During the meeting Melbourne Planning Outcomes’ John Joyner, who spoke on behalf of the company, said the application was a culmination of two years’ work.

“The application has been formally amended in response to officer requirements and was the subject of intense dialogue and cooperative effort between the architectural team and council officers,” Mr Joyner said.

“(This) has resulted in a building form which is compliant with council height and building guidelines.”