The controversial proposal to build more than 1000 homes on the Cranbourne Golf Course will now be decided by councillors in the February Council Meeting.
Casey Council updated its public notice on the planning application at 750 Glasscocks Road, Cranbourne North (Cranbourne Golf Course) on Monday 1 December, stating that “under Council’s Protocols for Councillors – Land Use Planning policy, this planning permit application has been called in by Councillors.
“This means the application will be considered and decided by the Councillors at the Council Meeting on Tuesday 17 February 2026.”
This marks the first major planning application to be decided by Casey’s newly elected councillors under the council’s Protocols for Councillors – Land Use Planning, which administrators introduced in response to the IBAC Operation Sandon inquiry into Casey councillors and developers.
Councillor Kim Ross, whose ward includes the Golf Course, said she made the decision to ask the Mayor to call in the planning application after discussion with other councillors.
She said it’s important that as councillors they remain impartial up to making a decision in the chamber, so unfortunately, she couldn’t make any further comment.
Casey Mayor Cr Stefan Koomen said councillors believe this proposal is of significant interest to our community due to its potential impact on local amenity, infrastructure and employment.
“That’s why it meets the criteria for councillors to consider directly,” he said.
“Most importantly, we encourage you to be part of the process.
“You’re welcome to register to attend the Council Meeting in person or watch online as councillors discuss and decide on the application.”
The update came after two closed-door objector meetings with the developer Brown Property Group and the council’s planning officers on Thursday 20 November, and Friday 21 November.
The housing application for the Cranbourne Golf Course has received more than 50 formal objections.
Objectors were informed at the meetings that the statutory 60-day decision period for the permit application would expire the week before Christmas.
If the Council fails to decide within the statutory deadline, Browns Property Group can bring the permit to the VCAT, but the ‘call-in’ by councillors could shift the final decision to a public council meeting.
Objector Jill Nambu told Star News that the call-in was crucial.
“This permit should be decided by our councillors, not by VCAT,” she 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.”
Casey Council’s Protocols for Councillors – Land Use Planning set out strict rules for how councillors must behave when dealing with planning permit applications, particularly large or controversial ones.
The Protocols stipulate that all applications are determined under delegation by council officers.
If a councillor wishes to ‘call in’ a planning application to have the matter determined by the council at a council meeting, this should be made in the broader community interest.
Broader community interest is defined as matters that impact the state, South East Melbourne region or the Casey municipality. It does not include matters that have a discrete, localised or neighbourhood catchment.
Star News reported back then that former councillors and community advocates argued that the new policy was too restrictive and did not strike the right balance between genuine locally elected representation on matters important to the community, whilst managing any potential conflicts of interest.
The Protocols also stipulate that councillors not compromise themselves by having meetings, phone calls or other correspondence with parties, including a proponent or objector, without council officers or other parties being present.
They are not permitted to express a view that demonstrates a bias or preconceived view, which explains why Cr Ross couldn’t make any further comment.
