129A Tower Road, Portarlington, VIC

Construction of a Dwelling Exceeding 7.5m in Height

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 23 days ago. The date it was received by them was not recorded.

(Source: City of Greater Geelong, reference 1292/2018)

10 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Dan Fitzgibbon commented

    This building is too large in size for size of block.
    We do not need a 3 storey house in residential area of Portarlington

  2. Anne commented

    I agree with Dan, that is ridiculous that they would be allowed to build to that height.
    Council really needs to put a stop to these high buildings

  3. Elizabeth Turner commented

    I prepare the fortnightly Portarlington Community Email Tree and have listed planning documents I know about here
    https://emailtree.yolasite.com/resources/Documents%20relating%20to%20Planning%20Applications%20Nov%202018.pdf
    Sorry, I think you need to copy and paste.
    We have an Intensive Housing Development Area that allows for three-story houses close to the town centre even though our Port Structure Plan from City of Greater Geelong says dwellings should be suitable for our predominately aged population. The GRZ1 zone covering Arlington Rise doesn't have a height limit. Some folk seem to believe the flat earth exists because they use Google Maps. Even though Port is on a hill, the Mayor at the time acknowledged the entry to Arlington Rise was in the wrong spot - the top of a hill. We are a seaside town, the character of our town is being lost sadly. Keeping the seaside town character would make Port so attractive - look at Queenscliff that draws so many visitors to marvel in it's historic built structure.

  4. Rebecca commented

    This is way too tall for a building in this spot. It will already have spectacular views if only double storey. There's nothing to be achieved here anymore than what could already be provided from a double storey dwelling

  5. Ann Nichol commented

    Residents move to Portarlington because it is a seaside village. Even with expected population growth it does not need three storey dwellings. Housing needs to be designed for families and the ageing population.
    The Andrews Government has committed to enact legislation to protect town boundaries and height controls. This protective legislation is urgently required.
    Ann N.

  6. Joe Borg commented

    The people of Portarlington dont need a huge eyesore such as this building .
    There is no need to have a building at this height (over 9.0 meters ) because it is already high on top of the hill and will have fantastic views over the township and the bay , with the maximum 7.5 mtr height limit.
    Other buildings which have been recently built in the area have followed the building guide lines set by the council.
    Dont forget these building guide lines were put in place to protect our fellow neighbours, the street scape and the local community from these types of developments.
    If this development is allowed to go ahead IT WILL open the flood gates for other oversized buildings to be built in our beautiful town.

  7. Ian Whitehead commented

    I object to yet another eyesore construction in Portarlington and encourage all concerned residents and those affected by the precedent this will set to make a strong objection. The City of Greater Geelong must be told in clear terms that this is not acceptable in our seaside village. The current proposal is too bulky and over-bearing... the materials unsuitable. The developer proposes Polystyrene wall cladding. Have we learned nothing about the fire hazards these materials represent?

    Residents should be aware that it is possible for ordinary people to act against overdevelopment even without hiring specialist consultants. Anyone interested might care to look in http://www.austlii.edu.au under my name: Whitehead & Ors v Greater Geelong CC & Anor [2013] VCAT 278 (12 March 2013)... we were a small group of people opposed to an overdevelopment in Portarlington AND WE ACTUALLY SUCCEEDED at VCAT! Of course this was ignored in the local press. Note that Objectors should expect to be ridiculed and shabbily treated by some council officers (but not all!). In particular, objections to traffic, parking and other congestion issues will be flippantly dismissed. The Council is renowned for an entrenched culture of bullying!

    Our objection succeeded because VCAT agreed with us. We defeated the Developer and the Council. We did it without referring to any community associations, one of which publically opposed our quest to stop the development! Be wary of those who find it acceptable for high density developments near the centre of town but not outside that zone. I tend to read "Restricting Town Boundaries" to be the same as favouring and encouraging high-rise-high density near the centre of town, which is exactly what the council intends to happen. Hence, ugly, bulky abominations will proliferate. Rather than providing housing for a growing population, the council policy just encourages speculative developments for sale to the chardonnay set who turn up on weekends driving the latest model Mercedes cars. Mostly they are just for negative gearing without being occupied for much of the year. It's about time we took the Council to task. Say a firm NO to inappropriate development in Portarlington!

  8. Park Street commented

    The Park Street Group are opposed to this development due to the significant location of this site as it will provide a significant visual impact to the town and surrounds. There are no other three storey developments in this area which is predominately a residential area with single and double Storey buildings. We are interested to hear from residents who have concerns about this development and others. Feel free to contact us at parkstreetgroup2019@gmail.com.

  9. Stella McLean commented

    consideration needs to be given to the "guidelines" regarding the 7.5mtr height limit and common sense as far as the location of this site.
    If the owner proposes a building of this height then allow the height but with a site cut to reduce the impact on the surrounding properties.
    This sight has amazing views without having to be higher than 7.5 metres from ground level or redo the plans and reduce the inside ceiling heights. council needs to look at this as a precedent for overlimit height which is not aesthetic or appropriate in this location.

  10. Iris Johanna Dillow commented

    Sorry for the late comment, having been unwell.
    All the space taken up by the lift, to access the 3rd storey, would be better used on the 2nd storey. No need for this height on top of a hill.
    Building lacks any attractive design features, yet it will dominate the ridge.
    There are no neighbours to object about overshadowing etc NOW, but such issues may adversely affect the land value on adjoining properties.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts