Building plans of 140 lots in Waterford Rise in limbo
Millions of dollars of residential development at Waterford Rise, Warragul has been halted pending a dispute over retaining walls. With earthworks in the final stage of the estate suspended, building plans for the owners of 140 lots are in limbo...
Millions of dollars of residential development at Waterford Rise, Warragul has been halted pending a dispute over retaining walls.
With earthworks in the final stage of the estate suspended, building plans for the owners of 140 lots are in limbo.
Works will be on hold until a dispute between Baw Baw Developments Pty Ltd (Waterford Rise) and Baw Baw Shire can be resolved at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Earthworks were suspended in September when council officers questioned the height of a public interface retaining wall being built along a reserve.
Retaining walls, both in the public realm and individual lots, have been a common feature of previous stages of the development, including 970 residential lots, developed over the past 10 years.
But developers have hit a stumbling block at the final stage, leaving some lot owners unable to commence building as planned.
Waterford Rise developers are seeking a resolution at VCAT.
Baw Baw Developments general manager Glenn Sanford said they had no choice but to take the matter to VCAT.
“We have 10 years of precedence and approvals. We want some certainty for the final stages.
“We can’t understand the sudden turnaround…council appears to be changing the rules overnight.
“Over-arching plans submitted for the final stages of development were endorsed and signed off by planners in August 2017.
“We are not asking for anything more than what has been approved in those plans,” he said.
Central to works halting on site were concerns about the height of a retaining wall along Hamilton Park in the public realm.
Mr Sanford said they accepted the concerns and put forward a proposal to the shire, which was accepted, to decrease the visual aspect of the wall by backfilling to the wall and landscaping.
“They led us to believe they were only concerned about the height of the retaining wall along that reserve…and we resolved that.
“But then the whole conversation moved to you can’t have retaining walls more than one metre on your blocks. That was the first time that had come on our radar.
“We accept that’s what the PSP says about reserves, but not their interpretation for private lots,” he said.
Mr Sanford said the Warragul Precinct Structure Plan was clear in its requirement for retaining walls on public interfaces, albeit shire approvals for previous stages appeared to contradict the PSP.
The PSP states “any vertical retaining structures in public places (with the exception of those that are part of building walls) must be no more than one metre in height, unless otherwise agreed by the responsible authority.”
It also is a PSP guideline that any retaining structure should be no more than one metre high between a dwelling and a street or public space, or when visible from a street or public space.
Mr Sanford said neither the PSP requirement or guideline stated retaining walls at the side or back of lots, where not visible from the street, could not exceed one metre.
“We have been building on PSP affected land for the past four years without a problem.
However, Mr Sanford believes draft design guidelines, not yet adopted by council, had muddied the waters.
Mr Sanford said the previous stage, developed only eight months ago, included street facing retaining walls more than one metre high and private retaining walls up to 1.7 metres high that were not visible to the public realm as per the PSP guidelines.
Another example was a public interface retaining wall in Marrabel Park, completed 18 months ago – only two streets from the current stage.
“All our buyers want is to be able to maximise the amenity of their block.
“Generally speaking they don’t care about the height of retaining walls because it’s all about having useable flat space.
“The whole idea of having a planning permit is to have a level of certainty so you can sell off the plan. And we have that certainty with the endorsed plans,” he said.
For the 140 lot owners, who paid between $200,000 and $300,000 for their lots, Mr Sanford said they potentially face builder penalties if building cannot commence according to contracts.
He said one buyer, who had already sold his house, would have to find alternative accommodation because he had not been able to start building as planned.
Mr Sanford said many of their contractors also had work immediately halted, forcing some contractors, like local company Mad Cat Constructions to find work outside the shire to avoid standing down staff.
