VCAT Challenge Over Cranbourne Golf Course Redevelopment Set for August Hearing

POSTED ON April 4, 2026 @ 2:08 pm

CRANBOURNE – A legal challenge against the controversial redevelopment of the Cranbourne Golf Course will proceed to a full hearing later this year, following a decision by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Hampton Park resident Garry Page lodged the application against Casey Council’s February approval of the project. Despite earlier reports that the challenge might be withdrawn due to potential costs, Mr. Page has confirmed his intent to move forward.

Key Dates and Proceedings

VCAT has established a timeline for the legal battle:

2 June: Compulsory conference between all parties.
24–28 August: A scheduled five-day full hearing.

Mr. Page has already submitted an initial 91-page objection document and is currently preparing more detailed evidence.

“I’ve now got to sit down and write a more detailed document,” Mr. Page said. “I wouldn’t be objecting against Brown Property Groups’ plan to subdivide the golf course for housing. What I would be objecting against is the Casey Council’s decision to issue a planning permit.”

Grounds for Objection

The submission challenges the validity of the permit on several procedural and technical fronts, including:

Administrative Discrepancies: Questions regarding inconsistencies in land descriptions across multiple titles.
Public Notification: Claims that proper public notice may not have been given during the initial planning process.
Planning Compliance: Concerns over setbacks, car parking arrangements, and the preservation of significant canopy trees.

A Divisive Development

The project, spearheaded by Brown Property Group, remains one of the City of Casey’s most contentious planning issues. In February, Casey councillors unanimously approved the permit for the northern half of the former course.

The approved plans allow for:

Up to 499 new dwelling lots.
121 lots measuring under 300 square metres.

During the initial planning phase, more than 50 formal objections were lodged. Local residents have consistently voiced concerns regarding high housing density, increased traffic, pressure on existing infrastructure, and the permanent loss of significant green space. While some locals urged the council to reject the proposal as a matter of principle, the council’s unanimous approval shifted the battleground to the tribunal.