Archive:  22 Calthorpe Street Gisborne

Last Updated  23/12/16

Application For 29 Dwellings (yes, 29) On 7,000 Sqm  In Calthorpe Street, Gisborne

(23/12/16 - P)  'Over-development' and 'out-of-character' have just reached new heights 

Planning application PLN/2015/412 has been made (on behalf of the Robinson Family Trust) for 10 townhouses, 1 single story dwelling and 18 apartments.  One street tree in Fisher Street is also to be removed.  The site is just under 7,000 square metres and currently vacant, and comprises four titles located at the south-east corner of Calthorpe and Fisher Streets in Gisborne.  The Gisborne Main Drain (aka Bunjil Creek) forms the eastern boundary of the site.

A previous permit was granted in 2006, but was not acted on and expired (the developer's planning report at page 2 says 14 dwellings were approved in 2006; local residents say the approved development was reduced to 13 dwellings).  The planning report for the application claims the main difference between the 2006 proposal, and the current one, is the inclusion of a "modest" apartment style development in the centre of the site instead of townhouses / dwellings.  That "modest" apartment block is three floors and 18 apartments, including underground car park, and a lift.

The design and planning team of Bill Jacobs Pty Ltd (Keilor Park), and G2 planners (Gattini) at Moonee Ponds that are associated with this application also gave Gisborne the Nexus Call Centre.  Bill Jacobs Pty Ltd has also been associated with other developments including the Helensville townhouse/unit development (at the Howey Street corner 'gateway' with Melbourne Road),  and the very large supermarket proposal at Riddells Creek.  All of these attracted strong community resistance, and objections to over-development, poor design characteristics, and lack of compatibility with rural town character.

Although the Macedon Ranges planning scheme supports a diversity of housing types for the 22 Calthorpe Street site and parts of the broader area around it, DDO17 (Design and Development Overlay, Schedule 17) is applied to the site and requires all development to (amongst other things):

"Protect and enhance the established semi-rural and village character of the residential area surrounding Gisborne Township"

"Ensure that new development has proper regard for established streetscape and development patterns in terms of building design, height, form, scale, siting and fencing" and

"Ensure new development respects its natural and built environment and does not dominate the landscape."

There's medium density appropriate to Gisborne, then there's the proposal at 22 Calthorpe Street.

The development proposal

The aerial view shown (above left) shows existing development surrounding the site is relatively low density, with ample garden and grass space around dwellings.  Photo source:  Site Analysis and Context page 3  Top is north.

The design response shown (above right) shows that the proposed development is basically wall-to-wall dwellings around two boundaries, with a large apartment block in the middle, and these separated by an internal concrete driveway.  Only the mandatory green-coloured creek/drain buffer area suggests a "green" space.  Photo source: Drawing TP01 Site description and design response  Top is north.

Here are some issues that have been identified to raise in a submission:

• This proposal is completely out of touch with the site, surrounding development and character, and the town's semi-rural and village character.  It is an avaricious, suburban outcome that has no empathy with Gisborne, or the Macedon Ranges planning scheme's requirements for new development in the town, and this site.
• All but one of the new 29 dwellings/apartments is two-storey.  All but one of the existing surrounding dwellings (shown right, above) is identified as single storey.
• Front setbacks for new development along Calthorpe Street are shown as 7.5 metres but are supposed to match the front setback from Calthorpe Street of the adjoining existing dwelling to the south.  The existing house to the south seems to have a front setback twice what is proposed in the new development.  Properties on the opposite (east) side of Calthorpe Street also have larger setbacks.
• The setback of new dwellings from the southern boundary is very small (perhaps 2 or 3 metres?) with storage areas, bin storage and clothes lines abutting the 1.8m paling back fence.  This fence in turn abuts the southern neighbour's driveway.  That single storey dwelling is confronted by a two-storey wall of houses and windows.

Development proposed along the site's southern boundary  Note:  the fence in this drawing seems to be shown on the wrong (i.e. northern) side of the dwellings, when it is to the south (i.e. along the southern boundary).

• Dwelling 11, which is closest to the drain/creek, and located partially within the drain/creek's floodplain, is squeezed as far back as possible from the creek, and appears joined to the property behind (Dwelling 10).  Dwelling 11's bin storage, and part of the outdoor storage area, are also in the floodplain.
• There is up to a 12 metre fall from right (west) to left (east) across this 7,000 sqm property, and a lot of 'cut' earthworks is proposed (looks like up to 3 metres in places).  Instead of designing with the slope, the response is to cut the slope to fit the development in.  This results in extensive retaining walls used across the site, including a 2 metres high retaining wall at the Calthorpe Street end of the southern boundary - higher than the 1.8 m high paling fence.

Cut and fill plan

• The building with 18 apartments has 3 floors, including a car park basement, and a lift - and a very awkward turning area for cars and trucks.
• Although dwellings have windows that seem to look straight into another dwelling or overlook other properties, very little "obscure" window glazing is identified on plans and drawings.
• Many of the townhouses are shown as 'built to the boundary', where the wall of one dwelling forms the boundary to the property next door.  Town houses along the southern boundary appear to be separated at ground level by as little as 1 metre.
• No information is provided about boundaries or subdivision sizes that will result when the development is subdivided.  Rough estimates are that lot sizes for the townhouses on the southern boundary could be as small as 260 m2, and 330 - 450m2 for the townhouses fronting Calthorpe Street.
• Dimensions on drawings are incomplete - for example, total building heights and distances between dwellings, southern boundary setbacks and so on aren't provided.
• Neither Calthorpe nor Fisher Streets have been designed to take the significant increase in traffic this development would produce (e.g. Fisher Street has no line markings).
• There is only one main vehicle access proposed, to Fisher Street, and that requires removal of one of the mature Elm street trees that forms part of the unbroken avenue of street trees along Fisher Street (southern side) from Melbourne Road all the way through to Aitken Street.
• The application's waste management report says the development won't be serviced by council waste collection (it is impractical to put 58 bins out on the street), and will need a private contractor.
• Notes about trees on the development drawings differ from the application's tree report.  For example, the tree report says Trees 2 and 4 in Fisher Street should be removed, but drawing TP 03 says Tree 2.  Drawing TP03 then also says a tree protection zone isn't shown for Tree 2 because the tree is to be removed but the drawing itself seems to show a tree protection zone, but none for Tree 1. 
• The report only assesses three trees in Calthorpe Street, but drawing TP22 shows 6 "existing" trees to be retained in Calthorpe Street, and one of those is the Ash (Tree 7) that the tree report says should be removed because of its location within the development.  Confusing!
• Tree 3 (immediately east of the new driveway to Fisher Street) is shown without a tree protection zone to its western edge in drawing TP22 but with a full tree protection zone in drawings TP 03 and TP 04 (the tree is drawn smaller in TP 03 and TP 04).
• The 20 metre buffer required by Melbourne Water along the drain/creek is the only "green" area and potential communal open space area on the site. 
• There only seem to be 6 visitor car spaces proposed.

Although the formal notice period for making submissions has now passed, submissions/objections can be made up until the time council makes a decision (likely next year). 

There are some 28 documents associated with this application.  Go to Council's website to inspect or download them:

https://eservices.mrsc.vic.gov.au/athway/Production/Web/GeneralEnquiry/EnquirySearch.aspx  type 'Calthorpe' at "street", and 'Gisborne' at "suburb" and click "Search".

MRRA Says:

Some understandably horrified local residents alerted MRRA to this awful proposal: development so jammed in it can't be done without putting one of the dwellings IN the floodplain, knocking off a street tree, short-changing character and existing residents on setbacks, moving tons of dirt, producing "walls" of two-storey development and creating a concrete-dominated environment.  

 Not good enough - never was, and never will be.  This is truly damaging development, and is what greed, and suburban, look like.  It's time the community pushed back against this substandard type of development that so many of us hate so much.  If you can find a moment to pen a short objection, would be fantastic!   Make sure you send a copy of submissions to all councillors, as well as lodging submissions with council.