Recently in Melbourne the Age newspaper highlighted two separate development conflicts. One was a challenge on Heritage values made by local residents of Clifton Hill over the development proposed for the Royal Hotel to turn the building into a five storey apartment block. Clifton Hill is now gentrified, an area where property values and personal incomes are on the high side. The campaign against the development met with significant community support. Their challenge was successful at VCAT and the proposed development will not be proceeding.

Compare this with another battle with Developers in North Melbourne. This is a suburb with a high level of public housing and a heavy population of recent migrants resident in numerous high rise Ministry of Housing towers – Boundary Road, Alfred Street, and Racecourse Road, Debeney’s Paddock. There is a strong Muslim population residing here and a local mosque situated in an old factory building on Boundary Road. Behind the factory is a vacant block of land upon which The Australian Muslim Social Services Agency (AMSSA) plans to build a meeting hall and a basketball court.
The western side of Boundary Road backs onto the Campbellfield suburban railway line. Beyond the railway line is the Moonee Ponds Creek. The area has always been industrial – it was formerly flood prone but it has now been rezoned by the City of Melbourne to encourage a mid-level residential and commercial precinct. The AMSSA plans are very much at odds with those of the Developers who have purchased the old industrial blocks with the intent of building multi-level luxury apartment blocks. At least that’s what their actions seem to say. Here are the two articles for your review:
Clifton Hill
The Age
By Cara Waters, May 2, 2023 — 8.23am
Historic pub, not apartments: Residents win at tribunal
Key points
- The Royal Hotel, which dates back to 1889, is one of a string of Melbourne pubs which have become a battleground between developers and residents.
- The pub’s owners abruptly called last drinks in 2017. Two years later, they submitted plans to redevelop it into a five-storey apartment complex.
- The plans received more than 270 objections, with residents upset at the loss of their local pub and concerned by the proposed demolition of significant parts of the heritage building.
A long-running battle over the redevelopment of a historic pub in Melbourne’s inner north has ended with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal rejecting plans to turn the pub into apartments.
The owners of the Royal Hotel in Clifton Hill abruptly called last drinks in 2017 and submitted plans to redevelop the pub in 2019 into a five-storey apartment complex, galvanising local residents to begin a years-long fight.
The plans received more than 270 objections. Residents were upset at the loss of their local pub and concerned by the proposed demolition of significant parts of the heritage building.
The Royal Hotel, built in 1889, is one of a string of Melbourne pubs which have become a battleground between developers and residents following the illegal demolition of the Corman in Carlton.
Last year unions and residents joined forces to fight to save the John Curtin Hotel in Carlton. and a campaign to retain The Tote in Collingwood as a pub and live music venue continues.
VCAT rejected the owners’ redevelopment proposal for the Royal Hotel last week on the basis that it would not result in a net community benefit.
“We acknowledge that the proposal is consistent with the identified policies which seek to increase residential densities in well-serviced locations such as this,” VCAT found. “On balance, however, we find that these benefits do not outweigh the detriment to the significance of the heritage place (and to this individually significant heritage building), that will be a consequence of the proposal.”
Clifton Hill resident David Levin, who campaigned against the redevelopment, said locals were “quite outraged” by the plans as the pub had played an important role in the community.
“It was where the local school teachers met every Friday; it’s where people had their parties and celebrations and so on, like sporting clubs,” he said. “For 120 years it’s been the focal centre of this little area.”

Levin said locals were not opposed to development but were concerned about heritage destruction.
“I don’t think it’s NIMBY [Not In My Backyard], nobody has objected to the brand new doctor’s surgery opposite the pub,” he said. “All people were saying was you shouldn’t destroy the essential historic fabric of the area and try to build five storeys plus on the roof.”
Levin said although the redevelopment had been rejected, it was unclear whether the Royal Hotel would ever return to operating as a pub.
“I’d love to think that it would become a pub,” he said. “I think it could be a very successful pub and it would be well-supported. There’s very little to compete with it, nothing in the immediate area.”
However, in a local Facebook group devoted to discussing ideas about the redevelopment of the Royal Hotel, some residents backed the apartment plan.
“Five storeys isn’t bad considering a lot of other proposals,” one resident wrote. “The more and more expensive it is to live around here, the more amenable I feel towards apartment developments. Clifton Hill is becoming too much of an enclave for the wealthy.”
City of Melbourne deputy lord mayor Nicholas Reece said the case was a huge win for the community campaign to save Melbourne’s heritage pubs.
“These pubs are part of the fabric of Melbourne, they are one of the things that make the inner city so special,” he said. “But they are under development pressure like never before as developers look to buy corner sites and convert them to a ‘higher value use’.”
Reece said the community campaign to save the Royal Hotel was similar to those to protect the John Curtin and The Tote.
“The good news is that the community is winning more than we are losing so far,” he said. “But the pressure to redevelop these sites is only growing, and we are going to see more pubs at risk.”
Reece said Victoria needed better planning protections for heritage pubs.
“They need to be recognised for their historical social value, not just for their architectural significance,” he said. “We also need local councils across Melbourne to do more to gain heritage recognition for their local pubs like we have been doing in City of Melbourne.”
A Yarra City Council spokeswoman said it had refused the development application prior to the VCAT hearing on a range of grounds including the impact on local heritage.
“Protecting and enhancing Yarra’s heritage is integral to planning and development in Yarra,” the spokeswoman said.
The owners of the Royal Hotel did not respond to a request for comment made through their solicitors.
North Melbourne
The Age
By Royce Millar and Najma Sambul, May 8, 2023 — 5.00am
They’re trying to bully us out’: The mosque standing firm against developers
As factories and warehouses give way to swish apartments and cafes, a plan for a small basketball court behind a mosque is proving a fault line in the transformation of old North Melbourne.
Since 2010 the Australian Muslim Social Services Agency (AMSSA) has operated an inconspicuous mosque and community centre in Boundary Road, opposite the North Melbourne public housing flats.

It is renowned for its community work, notably during the Andrews government’s contentious hard lockdown of housing estates in mid-2020, when it provided not only crucial food and care for fearful residents but also an operational base and local knowledge for officials and police.
“If it wasn’t for community organisations such as AMSSA, people would have been starving three days into the lockdown,” said one thankful public tenant in evidence to the Victorian Ombudsman’sinvestigation of the government’s shambolic siege.
Now the mosque is struggling for its survival in this faded corner of industrial Melbourne, under state and Melbourne City Council plans to remake the area as a mid-level residential and commercial precinct.
Neighbouring developers are fighting AMSSA’s proposal for a $1.8 million single-level basketball court and meeting hall behind the mosque.

AMSSA believes it is part of a strategy to drive it out of the area.
“They want our property,” said secretary Adam Mohamed. “We think they’re pressuring us to sell up; they’re trying to bully us out.”
The dispute raises uncomfortable questions for government about the vulnerability of community agencies such as AMSSA in the face of urban “renewal” projects and land rezoning that, in this neighbourhood, have tripled land values since 2010.
Over 20 years, AMSSA raised funds from Somali and other Muslim communities, and in 2010 it bought the Boundary Road warehouse because of its proximity to public housing in which many Somalis live.

It is one of a handful of mosques in the inner city – a cultural, social and sporting as well as religious hub. But it is sandwiched between neighbours with big plans that do not include a mosque next door.
To the north, prominent developer David Wardlaw has approval for a $750 million project including luxury apartments designed by high-end architects Fender Katsalidis. To the south and west, the Marcocci family – of the Marcocci Property Group – is looking to relocate its University Food Group, to allow redevelopment of the expansive warehouse site.
For more than three years, Wardlaw and the Marcoccis have opposed the basketball court at every turn through the planning and building approvals process, including at the Melbourne City Council and appeals to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the Building Appeals Board.
AMSSA has triumphed throughout, with VCAT member Alison Glynn rejecting the Marcoccis’ argument that the basketball court is an “underdevelopment” of the site, concluding instead that it “provides a demonstrable benefit in improving facilities at a valued community service”.
91-101 Boundary Rd, North Melbourne
Wardlaw slammed the planning process and, in particular, the city council’s support of the mosque’s plan as “utopian woke crap”.
“We know it was a bad decision and was not made with any planning merit,” he said.
He described the mosque – a former warehouse – as an “eyesore” and the proposed basketball court as a “disgrace”.
In an extraordinary escalation of the dispute, the Marcocci family is now threatening to challenge at the Supreme Court a Building Appeals Board ruling in favour of the mosque – a move that could further delay construction of the basketball court for months or years.
Tim Adams, an architectural draughtsman who designed the building, said he had not seen such intense opposition to a simple construction job in his 45-year career.
“The infuriating thing is that by now, a project like this would normally be up and going. It has cost a community organisation a great deal of money.” he said.
And that, said Mohamed, seems to be the point.
More than half of a $350,000 state government grant towards development of the basketball court has been absorbed fighting planning battles. A deadline for completion of the project is approaching, and the mosque has little to show on the ground for its efforts. Meanwhile, construction costs have exploded.
Wardlaw, who has worked closely with the Marcoccis through the dispute, acknowledged the financial strain the fight is causing. “It may be a case of who has the most money,” he said. “They’ve [AMSSA] got limited funds.”
Mohamed confirmed that Wardlaw had offered to buy the mosque site, but said the property was not for sale.
He said AMSSA chose this North Melbourne location to serve the community and especially the people in the flats across the road. “Maybe the developers will try to close the public housing as well,” he quipped.
Nearby resident and city councillor Rohan Leppert avoided commenting specifically on the dispute, but said the mosque was “at the heart” of the community.
“It’s important to recognise that places of worship and community facilities are entirely legitimate inclusions in the mix of land uses in this area,” said Leppert.
The Clifton Hill defence was well funded and those involved had a strong understanding of the requirements of Heritage Victoria. The AMSSA have yet to turn a sod on their property having been challenged and assailed at every turn by those with adjacent properties.
It will be interesting to see who prevails. It certainly illustrates the lengths Developers will go to to facilitate their plans whether their vision is supported or not.