Who's responsible for the 1,100 new homes proposed for Oakleigh South?

A proposal to deliver a large housing development in Oakleigh South is on its final stretch after more than a decade of planning limbo full of appeals and rejections.

But after years of being a hot potato, it seems nobody wants to be in charge of ensuring the site remains safe – with state authorities absent from a key planning meeting and Monash Council arguing it's not their circus to run. 

What’s being proposed? Sterling Global has put forward detailed plans to create a residential community - named Talbot Village - on the site at 1221-1249 Centre Road in Oakleigh South.

• The development plan has outlined 10 percent of the dwellings – between 860 and 1,100 – would act as affordable housing.

• The height of dwellings would range from two to six storeys and 15 percent of the site would act as open space.

• The proposed site is a 18.8 hectare patch that was once a sand quarry and garbage tip. It’s this origin story that has some in the community unsure of the project.

The site’s history: The site operated as a sand quarry from the 1950s to the 1990s and as a landfill from the 1970s to the 1990s, with the largest hole measuring 15 metres deep.

To and fro: Proposals to rezone the site for residential growth date back to 2014. 

The current draft amendment was put before the community last year, before Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny decided to refer the matter to a Standing Advisory Committee (SAC) for further advice.

• The SAC held a public hearing from Monday November 24 to Monday December 1.

• According to the amendment documents, the Planning Minister will be the responsible authority for approval of two things: the planning scheme amendment and the broader development plan.

• However, Monash Council officers argue the council is likely to be responsible for approving and ensuring compliance of the separate plans. 

• Council’s concern is that multiple subdivisions would allow for the creation of a number of Owner Corporations, which would lead to confusion as environmental compliance would be the responsibility of several owners.

Danger management: Remediation works outlined in the planning documents include gas monitoring and venting through a landfill cap – a man-made barrier to control the leakage of methane gas from the landfill.

Council reaction: Last Tuesday, Monash Council moved a motion to write to the Planning Minister to reaffirm it would not be responsible for environmental compliance on the site, arguing it could not meet the financial demands of such a task and would not have the necessary expertise to deal with environmental compliance issues.

• Monash councillor Brian Little told the chamber he thought the Department of Transport and Planning and the Environment Protection Authority’s (EPA) decision to not attend the most recent SAC meeting was “frankly deplorable”.

• 🗣️“It seems to us that it’s a case of handballing responsibility towards council,” said Little.

Local reaction: Neighbours for Public Green Space Oakleigh South president, Curt Thompson, said the group of locals was calling for the State Government to reject the proposal altogether, as it posed an “unnecessary risk” to the community in terms of potential impacts and loss of local amenity.

• 🗣️“No site such as this has ever been developed for residential housing in Australia,” Thompson told the Eastern Melburnian.

Absent authority: An EPA spokesperson said it has been providing advice regarding the site’s rezoning since 2017, but decided not to attend the most recent public hearing as it is “satisfied that its views are already clear to the committee and the planning authority”

• “In the case of Talbot Quarry, EPA considers that sufficient information is available to the planning authority to make a decision on environment protection matters,” said the spokesperson. “EPA continues to regulate the site, which is subject to an Environmental Action Notice that requires ongoing monitoring, with results reported to the EPA.”

The Eastern Melburnian understands Department of Planning and Transport already provided input through consultation, meaning the presence of representatives at the SAC hearing was not required.