Casey Council and developer Browns Property Group faced probing questions from residents over a plan to build more than 1000 homes on the Cranbourne Golf Course during two objector-only information sessions held last Thursday and Friday.
Despite multiple requests, Star News was not permitted to attend the meetings, being told they were not open to the general public, including the media.
Unless one of the three councillors who attended the meetings “calls it in,” the decision on the site at 750 Glasscocks Road will be made under delegation by council officers and will not be debated at a public council meeting. This was reiterated in both sessions, attendees have told Star News.
According to the invitation emails sent to the objectors, the purpose of the meeting was to provide a forum for all parties to explain their views relating to the application, an opportunity to “clarify grounds for objection, ask questions relating to the application, and be provided with information on the next steps of the assessment and decision-making process”.
About 11 objectors attended the first meeting on the night of Thursday 20 November, while three attended the second on the morning of Friday 21 November.
Both sessions ran for just one hour and followed a similar structure: a brief five-minute presentation from Browns Property Group, followed by five themed discussions on infrastructure and traffic, environmental concerns, community and social impacts, and design and development issues.
Councillors Kim Ross, Gary Rowe and Lynette Pereira attended the first session, and Cr Ross and Cr Rowe also attended the second one.
One moment that stood out in the memories of the first-session participants was when one of the councillors tried to ask a question, and the councillor was told by a council officer that they were there to listen and observe, not ask questions.
Star News previously wrote a story on residents’ concerns about the permit application, including the traffic congestion, the loss of green space, including about 4000 trees, the capacity of local infrastructure (schools, kindergartens, GPs), and the risk from the nearby landfill (odour and leachate), and many of the concerns were discussed again during the meetings.
“They (Browns Group) tried to clarify what they’ve done and why they’ve done some of those points in their development plans,” one attendant said, who preferred to be anonymous due to private reasons.
“When we talked about the traffic and everything, they were like, well, that’s a Casey problem. That’s a State Government problem.
“(Their point is) we’re not here to deal with infrastructure. We’re just here to develop the land, and we asked about the schools, and they said, well, that’s the same Government problem.”
The attendant said their take was that none of the concerns from the objectors’ side were meaningfully addressed.
“It was just for them to tell us what they wanted.
“When we reasserted that we’re concerned about the traffic and not enough green space, they were like, we’ve followed the planning principles.
“And that’s our research. They will try and explain to us why they made these decisions.”
But the attendant admitted that they did feel better after the meeting because they got to talk about their concerns, and the developer got to explain what they were doing, despite nothing being seemingly resolved at the end of the meeting.
Another objector, who had a background in building estates, said he was “perfectly happy” after going to the meeting. He had environmental and engineering concerns before the meeting.
“Out of all the developers I’ve come across, Brown’s stands out far and above the other. Now you have to trust these developers to a certain extent,” he said.
“We’ve got a lot more single mothers. They have to get a house, and they can only afford this. They can’t afford a normal block of land. I’m starting to understand that now.
“We always had that thing, they put all these blocks and lots into a development because it means more money for the council and more money for the developer, and to a certain extent, that’s true, but that’s not entirely true.
“It’s market-driven and society-driven. People don’t understand that.”
Star News also talked to other objectors. Some of their concerns were still not resolved, and they left with more questions than answers. Some said the meetings did clarify some concerns for them.
When it comes to the next step for the permit application, they were told at the meeting that a strict statutory 60-day decision deadline fell on some day before Christmas, meaning a decision would be expected the week before Christmas.
Objectors were told that they had already paused the clock earlier in the year, and given that there was now sufficient information, they could not legally pause it again.
If the Council fails to decide within the statutory deadline, Browns Property Group can bring the permit to the VCAT.
“This permit should be decided by our councillors, not by VCAT,” Jill Nambu, one of the objectors, said.
“That’s what they were elected to do. They’re elected to represent their constituents.
“I think the councillors needed to make a decision based on the law, but also the community’s concerns, their requests, and their needs.
“At least one of them should be calling it in and really putting the people’s voice in. I mean, this is a democracy. They have the right to call it in.”
Ms Nambu is not satisfied with the developer’s answers to the community’s concerns at the meeting.
“There needs to be conversations from Brown, from the council with the State. We can’t just say, it’s the State’s responsibility, but not actually have conversations with them,” she said.
“I understand that we don’t have enough homes. Don’t get me wrong. But people shouldn’t have to suffer because of poor planning. How many times do we get people complaining about the roads around here because they are not having conversations?”
Star News contacted Browns Property Group to inquire if they had submitted or planned to submit any amendments after the objector meetings. They didn’t get back before the deadline.
Star News contacted Casey Council to inquire about the specific date for the permit outcome, and if any councillors indicated that they were going to “call it in” at the December meeting.
Casey Council has advised that they cannot comment or foreshadow what decision the councillors will make regarding the delegations for this application.
A City of Casey spokesperson said that council officers were assessing the planning permit application.
“We acknowledge the high community interest in this application, and to ensure as many community members could make a submission to the process as possible, Council extended the public notice period from the statutory 14 days to a 28-day period.
“The Objector Meeting provided an additional opportunity for community members to express their concerns with the application. No decisions were made at this meeting; it was an additional opportunity to hear directly from community members.”
