East Melbourne Group claims victory at VCAT as Hotham St proposal refused

A contentious apartment proposal for Hotham St in East Melbourne has been knocked back by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), in a decision handed down late last year that marked a significant win for the East Melbourne Group and neighbouring residents.

Inner City News understands the developer, Rocclea Projects Pty Ltd, is now in discussions with the City of Melbourne about lodging a revised planning application in light of the December ruling.

In its decision, VCAT affirmed the council’s position and directed that no permit be granted for the proposed three-storey, five-dwelling apartment building at 179–183 Hotham St.

The application sought approval for a contemporary apartment building with two basement levels and vehicle access via Amberley Lane. The site sits within the residential zone and the Heritage Overlay covering the East Melbourne and Jolimont Precinct.

While the council had initially raised a range of concerns – including heritage and amenity impacts – amended plans resolved some issues during the course of proceedings. However, the tribunal ultimately found the proposal unacceptable in its built form response to the adjoining significant heritage dwelling at 175 Hotham St, known as Hotham House.

In its reasons, VCAT concluded the development would “visually dominate or visually disrupt the appreciation of Hotham House and more broadly this part of the heritage place”.

The tribunal was particularly critical of the façade height and upper-level massing, finding that the proposal failed to maintain a façade height consistent with the adjoining significant building and did not sufficiently recess upper levels to protect the prominence of Hotham House.

It determined the proposed façade was between 1.7 and 1.9 metres higher than that of Hotham House and that this “is an unacceptable exceedance”.

Although overall building height was within the zone’s limits, VCAT stressed that heritage policy required a more nuanced response than simply complying with maximum heights. The decision found the architectural expression – including what it described as a “heavy forward projecting balcony and lack of upper level recession” – was contrary to heritage objectives.

Beyond heritage concerns, the tribunal also identified unacceptable visual bulk and side setback impacts along the eastern interface with neighbouring properties at 171, 173 and 175 Hotham St. While overshadowing alone would not have justified refusal, the combined massing and limited articulation along the boundary were found to create an unreasonable outcome.

The building is not sufficiently articulated to break up its scale,” the tribunal wrote, adding that the composition would read as “an oversized object out of character with the scale of the residential context.

Traffic and access issues via Amberley Lane were ultimately deemed acceptable, with VCAT satisfied that the minor variation to access width and the projected vehicle movements would not create unsafe conditions.

The East Melbourne Group, which was formally listed as a respondent in the proceeding, had maintained that the design would sit uncomfortably within the heritage streetscape and overwhelm neighbouring dwellings.

The decision is seen as a reaffirmation of the strength of heritage policy protections in the precinct, particularly in relation to protecting the visual prominence of individually significant buildings.

However, sources indicate the developer is already exploring design revisions aimed at addressing the tribunal’s concerns around façade height, upper-level setbacks and articulation.

VCAT itself acknowledged that a redesign would be necessary, noting that “greater side setbacks generally and/or modifying the extent of the top floor across the site will impact upon the remaining spaces” and that “a redesign is necessary”.

Any fresh application will likely be closely scrutinised by both the council and local residents, given the detailed findings in the December decision. •