Newport Timber Yard: Another ‘no’ to plans

Plans for a 43-dwelling, three-storey development on the former Newport Timber Yard site have been rejected for a third time.

A panel of three Hobsons Bay councillors last Thursday refused to
grant a planning permit to Domain Hill for the development at 6 Paine
Street.

Two earlier plans were rejected by the council and subsequently by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Domain Hill director Peter Cahill said he had changed the
building’s design after the tribunal described it as “a monolithic
block”.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Post a comment below

He admitted the first plan was “architecturally very adventurous” but said that he thought he was doing the right thing in proposing an iconic building for Newport.

Mr Cahill confessed that the second building design, like the
first, was an “unmitigated failure”. “What we got wrong again, I’m
embarrassed to say, was the external architecture.”

He said the latest plans had been amended “to accommodate the residents”.

However, more than 300 residents, who had lodged objections with the council, disagreed with him.

Anthony Simmons, of the Protect Newport residents action group,
said Planning Minister Matthew Guy had stipulated that the volume of
objections to new developments should be taken into account by the
council.

The objections included the building being an overdevelopment for the site and being out of sync with the quaint heritage area.

In announcing the panel decision to refuse to grant a permit, Cr
Luba Grigorovitch said the number of objections had been taken into
consideration.

“We as councillors could definitely see that the community is
crying out here that they’re not happy with this proposed development.”

She said the council felt the plan represented an overdevelopment
of the site and suggested the applicant “go back to the drawing board”.

Other reasons for refusal included the plan’s failure to meet
municipal and state planning policies, that it would negatively impact
on neighbourhood character and that its bulk, form and appearance was
inconsistent with the area’s heritage overlay.