San Remo fifth storey “penthouse” sparks anger
Residents described a proposed fifth storey amendment to a controversial development as a “blight” and “outrageous”.
San Remo residents have described a proposed fifth storey amendment to a controversial development as a “blight” and “outrageous”.
Residents and businesses look set to fight the amendments – made by the developer at the last minute – to the already approved $6 million complex at 131-133 Marine Parade.
Locals battled the initial plans in 2019, with Bass Coast Shire councillors rejecting the proposal because of concerns about parking, car stackers and height, but with VCAT overturning council and approving plans last year.
The approved plans are for a 22-apartment complex with four retail shops at four-storeys high, above San Remo’s three-storey height limit.
Now the developer has lodged an amendment, seeking approval to add a fifth storey, 151m2 “penthouse” comprised of a living room and deck area on the roof of the building.
Underneath the retail area, the developer wants to add a 345m2 basement for storage as well as car stacker pits.
A visual impact assessment report lodged with the amendment states the proposed fifth storey will be “mostly concealed from the public view due to its location in the centre of the building”.
The application says the proposed amendments will provide “positive outcomes”, as they do not require additional car parking, will not affect vehicle or pedestrian movement, and do not change the development at street level.
So far two objections have been lodged against the amendment, with others seeking an extension on time to lodge their submissions with the shire.
Submissions can only address the amendments, with the application to be heard at a council meeting only if a certain number of objections are received, or if the application is called in.
If the amendment is not approved by Council, the developer may choose to go to VCAT.
Angry
One objection said it was “bad enough that VCAT gave the developer the go-ahead to build a four-storey monolith on the site”, against the decision of council.
“To seek to take it to yet another level is both impudent and outrageous,” wrote the objector.
They said San Remo was growing but “it remains a small seaside town” with an overlay stating buildings should not exceed three storeys.
“VCAT ruled the design’s step back of the four storeys would prevent the building looming over Marine Parade. I suggest a further storey would cancel out that suggested amelioration … five storeys would well exceed the overlay ruling.”
The objector said any expansion to the development would add to traffic and parking woes.
“Marine Parade is already chaotic (during peak season). There is insufficient parking and the turn off from Phillip Island Road onto Marine Parade and into Bergin Grove becomes very dangerous and often impatient drivers lined up in four directions.
“The intersection is one building away from 131-133 Marine Parade.”
Blight
A second objector described the amendment as “a blight on San Remo”.
“This building is more suited to inner Melbourne not San Remo,” the submission states.
“The public doesn’t want this type of construction for San Remo. Council has a responsibility to fight to ensure this doesn’t happen. Dwelling sizes are too small, the quantity of apartments is too great, the number of levels is too many.”
The objector questioned the purpose of the fifth storey living room.
“Details of the rooms use is understated,” asking whether it would be used for self-contained accommodation or a granny flat in the future.
“What assurances and policing will be provided to ensure the room’s future use for years to come is as stated?”
They said photos with the planning amendment were “not a true representation of the actual impact the building will have on the neighbourhood”.
“The development will be highly visible. It will be seen from all points of the compass. It will have a significant impact on the vista, dominate the skyline and is completely out of character for San Remo.”
The objector said only 40 car spaces for the entire development was already insufficient, with the proposed additional car stacker system not catering to any customers.
“There is only one alternative for the development’s customers and overflow parking: the supermarket car park. All other developments in San Remo have complied with council parking requirements. Why won’t this developer comply?”
With no street parking close to the development, the objector said the parking shortfall would “have an adverse economic impact on other businesses in San Remo … and will increase traffic congestion”.
