A proposed indoor sports facility in a Keysborough industrial estate has been refused by the state’s planning tribunal.
Auslander Developments sought a permit to use an existing warehouse at 32 Bass Court for two basketball courts or 24 badminton courts, and two table tennis courts.
The proponent submitted for up to 100 patrons and staff, with access to 100 car spaces, at the ‘Bass Badminton Centre’.
On 10 February, VCAT member Cassandra Rea ruled it was inappropriate to place the sports facility within the ‘buffer zone’ to the “state significant” Industrial 2 zone (IN2Z) in Dandenong South.
This is despite a school, temples of worship and houses being already in similar proximity to the IN2Z – which is home to heavy industry.
“It may be the case that these sensitive uses may cease to exist.
“It also does not justify adding to the number of sensitive uses that may impact on the functional operation of the industrial area.
“I am not persuaded that it achieves orderly planning to introduce a very large non-industrial use with 96 patrons into an area that functions as a buffer from more heavy industrial uses.”
Auslander had argued there was an “obvious notable community benefit” with little, or no, negative impacts, Rea noted.
It submitted the health and amenity of players wouldn’t be impacted by odour or dust from surrounding industries.
Rea was also concerned that the proposed sports facility’s site in an Industrial 1 zone would be no longer available for industrial and commercial use.
“This issue is heightened given the relatively large size of the premises (3737 square metres).”
Rea also found against the parking and traffic design.
“With 100 vehicles accessing this site, and potentially more with the future development on the adjoining site that is likely to include commercial vehicles, a safe and functional layout is essential.
“I am not convinced that the layout of car parking and reliance of the accessways to provide pedestrian access in addition to vehicles, will create a desirable safe environment for these recreational patrons, particularly the length of the accessway at 97 metres.”
The matter was decided at Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) due to Greater Dandenong Council failing to decide upon the application on time.
At the December hearings, the council opposed the permit.
