IF IT was up to Bass Coast councillors to decide the fate of an application to develop two dwellings at 6 Charmandene Court, Cowes, they would refuse it.

It’s the result of an order that was served to council on March 19, by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), in relation to the application made by MEGLYN Pty Ltd.

The application was appealed by the applicant, for a failure to decide within the prescribed statutory timeframe.

The VCAT hearing is set for August 10, and council is required to inform the tribunal on its position on the development.

It was recommended that if council was to decide the application, they should refuse it, which councillors agreed with at their monthly meeting last week.
Cr David Rooks supported the refusal and said there were many issues with the development.

“The setback is just one metre from Lovers Walk, which will be an incredible intrusion to the many people that use Lovers Walk,” Cr Rooks said.

“It will impact the neighbours’ view severely and with regards to the build of the house, it doesn’t allow for decent vegetation to grow within the design.

“I get upset for the community when these sorts of large buildings get designed and planned for, and I don’t think enough thought goes to the community.”

The 1036sqm subject site is located within the inner eastern part of the Cowes township.

It is proposed to construct one double storey dwelling in the northern section of the site and a single storey dwelling in the southern section of the site.

The double storey dwelling features a two-car garage, three bedrooms, kitchen, living and dining room, games room, bathroom, laundry, sauna. The proposed height was 8.3 metres.

The single storey dwelling features a single-car garage, three bedrooms, family room and bathroom, at a height of 5.479 metres.

A planning permit is required for properties with a height greater than 7 metres.

The application received seven objections with concerns including privacy, vegetation replacement, overshadowing, height and character.

The following reasons formed part of the refusal by council, as the proposal:

• Does not minimise the impact of development along the coastline.

• Does not protect and enhance the visual amenity and landscape of the coastal area.

• The proposal may impact recreational value of the coast.

• The proposal is at odds with the neighbourhood character.