Melbourne’s first attempt at a fast-tracked “off-the-shelf” three-storey apartment building has failed after Banyule City Council rejected a proposal that already had state government approval.
The rejection of the 17-dwelling apartment building in Rosanna, in Melbourne’s north-east, raises serious questions about the viability of the state’s much-touted Future Homes program, according to the developer who attempted to use it.
The council’s decision has also infuriated Melbourne’s pro-housing lobby group, which described the saga as a “masterclass” in how local government contributes to Victoria’s housing crisis.
Developer Jim Clarke-Sullivan of SCS Property – a firm which develops small-scale townhouse projects – said he was “gobsmacked” when Banyule Council rejected his Future Homes application at 125 Mountain View Parade two weeks ago, despite the proposal’s approval by the state Department of Transport and Planning, which created the program.
The application was for a 17-dwelling apartment development based on designs from architecture firm LIAN comprising a single one-bedroom apartment, eight two-bedroom apartments and eight three-bedroom homes.
It also includes 22 car spots in a basement car park, storage for 20 bikes, EV chargers, a communal terrace and a vegetable garden.
Small property developer Jim Clarke-Sullivan on the property he has applied to develop in Rosanna.Credit: Chris Hopkins
The state government launched Future Homes on the back of an architectural competition to develop “exemplar designs for apartment developments in the suburbs”, promising a four-month approval process instead of the usual 12-24 months. But councils still have the final say on granting permits.
The program launched in 2021 but has yielded only one building – in Shepparton in regional Victoria.
Under the program, there are four designs developers can choose from, with designs featuring bathtubs, extra kitchen space, laundry troughs and wider corridors to encourage young families, the elderly or disabled.
Eligible lots must be zoned residential, within 800 metres of a train station and an “activity centre”, and have no heritage or neighbourhood character overlays.
Clarke-Sullivan’s 1608-square-metre site in Rosanna was explicitly earmarked by the state government on a searchable public website of all lots deemed eligible for the program. The site once held a large single home and tennis court.
Late last year, the developer took part in a “referral meeting” with planners from the department and Banyule, so they could “resolve any outstanding matters” which might have stood in the way of council’s ultimate approval.
Clarke-Sullivan said no issues were raised but in early February, he was given seven working days’ notice that the council was going to reject his permit.
A council spokeswoman said the proposed development did not meet some of Future Homes’ objectives because the plans did not manage impacts to neighbouring properties, provide landscaping and canopy trees to support good outlooks and amenity, or contribute to the garden character of the area.
“From a sustainability point of view, the application did not optimise renewable energy generation, did not use best-practice passive design, did not support sustainable transport options,” the spokeswoman said.
Clarke-Sullivan said that seven days was not enough time to change the plans and claimed the council had refused his request for a time extension.
He believes Banyule’s refusal stems from community pressure – there were 267 objections and some opponents labelled the proposed development a “behemoth”, “ugly” and one that would “ruin the streetscape”.
“This isn’t about reckless development. These are really well-designed,” Clarke-Sullivan said.
The four off-the-shelf designs under the state government’s Future Homes program.
“[Neighbours are] entirely entitled to object, but the whole point of this program is that it’s supposed to circumvent this sort of NIMBYism, to enable medium-density development on good sites.”
The Banyule spokeswoman said the council was required to consider objections before deciding on an application, and that Future Homes “does not provide an exemption” to that.
The developer said he had already spent about $130,000 on the application process and had now lodged a dispute with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and requested Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny to “call in” the decision and take it from council hands.
“If [the state government] are serious about fixing the housing crisis, they need to stop pandering to local politics and use their call-in powers to get this project moving. Otherwise, their housing strategy is just empty headlines,” Clarke-Sullivan said.
“The entire viability of the program has been jeopardised by council’s refusal … [other] developers will not touch this with a barge pole.”
A spokesperson for Kilkenny said the minister’s office couldn’t comment on the proposal as it was being considered. But the spokesperson said: “We need councils to work with us to deliver more homes so more Victorians have the opportunity to buy or rent a place close to their family, their jobs, or where they grew up.”
Pro-housing lobby group YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) Melbourne, which reviewed the case, said Banyule City Council was “giving a masterclass in how local governments foster the housing crisis”.
“This is yet another piece of evidence that it is a mistake to give local councils the power to decide who gets to live in this city,” the group said.
The state government this week made a range of housing announcements including a plan to fast-track three-storey developments that removes the ability of neighbours to appeal.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.