East Melbourne Apartments Approved After VCAT Appeal

A tribunal has upheld the Whitehorse City Council's approval of a six-storey apartment block despite objections from neighbouring residents.

Vermont Hill Pty Ltd, the sole director of which is listed as Chinese national Chen Zhou, filed plans in 2024 for a 35-apartment building at 440-442 Burwood Highway, Vermont South, 26km east of the Melbourne CBD and it was approved this year.

But residents of nearby Cavill Court challenged the planning permit, arguing the proposal was incompatible with neighbourhood character and excessive in height and bulk, and failed to provide adequate space for landscaping and trees.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) considered whether the proposal responded appropriately to the site’s planning context.

Wider planning strategies in the area encourage “20-minute neighbourhoods” which “meet most people’s everyday needs” by developing housing opportunities close to existing services, jobs and public transport, the court recounted. 

Additionally, the subject land is located in what is called a substantial change area, where medium and higher density housing in the form of units, townhouses, flats and apartments is actively supported. 

Other developers have being eyeing the area as a result, with Keyton, formerly Lendlease Retirement Living, reportedly acquiring a site at 490 Burwood Highway last year for a $150-million retirement community.

The tribunal found “no dispute” that the land is well-located to accommodate medium-density housing.

Residents argued that the development failed to reflect the preferred character of the neighbourhood because it did not provide space for large trees. 

The council had responded saying that this aspect of the preferred character is relevant to land nearby but not necessarily the subject site as it fronts the busy Burwood Highway tram route. 

The tribunal agreed, finding that the development was in fact “strongly supported” by state and local planning policy. 

The objectors also compared the project unfavourably with a nearby development, which sits on a deeper lot with substantial setbacks and landscaping. 

But the tribunal said that, in this location, planning policy places greater emphasis on delivering medium-scale housing than on vegetation.

Concerns about overshadowing, traffic impacts and side and rear setbacks were also raised but were not deemed grounds for refusal.

While the tribunal found that the proposal would “achieve a net community benefit” it added certain conditions to the approved plans. 

These include prohibiting the amendment of the layout, including the design and location of the buildings, and the inclusion of a landscape plan with a tree protection zone included. 

VCAT allowed the council approval to stand.