PlanningAlerts

11 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. This is a totally inappropriate development for Service Street
   This development would suit the Gold Coast , not a small suburb like Hampton

2. I walked past Service Street just recently on my way down to the Hampton Shopping strip. I was astounded by the amount of signage, around the proposed development site, which in and of itself informed me that there clearly must be a matter of concern for a vast collective of neighbours along the street.
   I had heard mention of the proposed development, however as a resident further along in Sandringham I’d assumed that the proposed site was somewhere adjacent to the Hampton strip.
   Echo my surprise, to then find that the site itself was in the middle of a suburban neighbourhood of residential properties. Freestanding residential properties, depicting the neighbourly character, and quality of architecture, in this Bayside street.
   Then I realised that residents with strong concerns had formed a well followed online group. This I found out as I pulled out my phone to look up the proposed development, and see what it was all about. I very quickly became apparent of the sheer scale of what was being proposed to be constructed here.
   Looking at the developers plans, just as rapidly, informed my understanding of why there was such strong opposition demonstrated in front yards up and down the street.
   The scale of the proposal, the height and depth of the built format deep into the block, the amount of residences proposed, the built design and view that it will offer to the street from any angle it is viewed, van only be interpreted as bulky and dominant on the landscape. It will have a detrimental impact on the amenity currently enjoyed by existing residents, and is utterly out of character with the Bayside character guidelines, and aims articulated in council policies.
   One can only look to this being a very greedy grab By a property developer, which understandably those owning the properties being acquired to enable the build would have been most duly compensated for
   Of course the council also wins thru the creation of multiple rate notices for so many additional properties.
   This should not, and does not, offset the impact that such a development would have on so many residents surrounding it and on the site itself.
   Utterly inappropriate is my view this sort of thing needs to stop,
   It’s time council moved toward protecting our neighbourhoods in a much broader and clear manner that tells developers to cease proposing such high scale builds in residential streets of our Bayside Council area.
   Listen to the voices of the residents and support them at VCAT ... we know you have before and can once again !!!!

3. It is very disappointing that a development of this size is planned for this street of family homes. Most houses in this strip are of mid century or earlier design, and unobtrusive two storey extensions. The proposed development is three storey, and designed to dominate the street scape. The impact on local amenities will be felt immediately with extra cars, people impacting the street and local infrastructure. This sort of overbearing design and increased population density in a Suburban street within 5km of Port Phillip Bay seems to be against guidelines and promises given by state and local governments, impacting our environment which is already under threat from over development.

4. Agree with you all, our family homes are being destroyed by high rise !! More people more cars, more traffic, more money for the Bayside council as in our rates. Parking is already a huge problem in Hampton and Sandringham. An application is in at the moment in Sandringham for a 5 STOREY HUGE APARTMENT/ DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING A RETIREMENT VILLAGE on Bay st and Trentham St plus another huge development in Harston Street (Near Railway line on a small block.. around the corner PLUS THEY WANT TO PULL DOWN A HERITAGE BUILDING .. PLANS HAVE BEEN lodged and yellow notification signs have been up, our lovely Sandringham and Hampton is being destroyed, no more of our so called Sandringham Village living for the future, or Hamptons lovely characteristics, tree lined neighbourhood we need to stop this. Bayside Council you need to listen to all of us support us at VCAT, it is getting past a joke now, please appreciate the residents concerns.

5. I understand Bayside Council have rejected this planning application on the grounds it is inappropriate. It appears that well funded developers only need to escalate to VCAT and their completely inappropriate plans are approved with little resistance. Why have a council application process if VCAT are consistently over ruling the Council decision. Council are there to protect residents interests, and have to deal with the wrath of unhappy residents when developers get their way through VCAT. Please VCAT, please listen to the residents in Bayside!

6. I walked past Service Street just recently on my way down to the Hampton Shopping strip. I was astounded by the amount of signage, around the proposed development site, which in and of itself informed me that there clearly must be a matter of concern for a vast collective of neighbours along the street.
   I had heard mention of the proposed development, however as a resident further along in Sandringham I’d assumed that the proposed site was somewhere adjacent to the Hampton strip.
   Echo my surprise, to then find that the site itself was in the middle of a suburban neighbourhood of residential properties. Freestanding residential properties, depicting the neighbourly character, and quality of architecture, in this Bayside street.
   Then I realised that residents with strong concerns had formed a well followed online group. This I found out as I pulled out my phone to look up the proposed development, and see what it was all about. I very quickly became apparent of the sheer scale of what was being proposed to be constructed here.
   Looking at the developers plans, just as rapidly, informed my understanding of why there was such strong opposition demonstrated in front yards up and down the street.
   The scale of the proposal, the height and depth of the built format deep into the block, the amount of residences proposed, the built design and view that it will offer to the street from any angle it is viewed, van only be interpreted as bulky and dominant on the landscape. It will have a detrimental impact on the amenity currently enjoyed by existing residents, and is utterly out of character with the Bayside character guidelines, and aims articulated in council policies.
   One can only look to this being a very greedy grab By a property developer, which understandably those owning the properties being acquired to enable the build would have been most duly compensated for
   Of course the council also wins thru the creation of multiple rate notices for so many additional properties.
   This should not, and does not, offset the impact that such a development would have on so many residents surrounding it and on the site itself.
   Utterly inappropriate is my view this sort of thing needs to stop,
   It’s time council moved toward protecting our neighbourhoods in a much broader and clear manner that tells developers to cease proposing such high scale builds in residential streets of our Bayside Council area.
   Listen to the voices of the residents and support them at VCAT ... we know you have before and can once again !!!!

7. Horrified to see workman deliberately removing heritage features this week. This development is not only going to remove 3 heritage quality properties, it is also totally inappropriate for this residential area.

8. Very disconcerting to read the comment from Aileen that period features are being removed from the Service street properties .. when there has been a widely supported petition gathered in recognition of the period quality of the homes.
   Undermining process in such an open and audacious manner should be prevented by you bayside council !!!! This matter is before VCAT and you are also ...

   Have you no capacity to intervene ..
   heritage protection is being sought, and that would nullify all other matters as the homes won’t be able to be destroyed ..
   Clearly removing period features undermines the heritage protection.

   Perhaps those local can gather photo and video of the workers removing features ?!! I don’t believe it’s prohibited if undertaken from the street and without faces of individuals .. stand to be corrected ?!

9. While this development may seem unfair to the many wealthy Bayside residents, the State Government (Richard Wynne, DELWP) has a clear and important agenda to increase housing supply to increase housing affordability in Victoria for those not yet in the market.

   The entitlement of the 'baby boomers' never fails to amaze me. You need your multi-million dollar views protected at the cost of allowing others to live in established suburbs with transport linkages and good public education.

   As to heritage, if you wish to maintain these sites, then buy one yourself and keep it in good repair. I wonder how many 'complainers' live in a relatively new, plain vanilla house that seems to be the common preference in Bayside these days.

   Or is it that you just don't want the lower-middle class living near you? Either way, get over yourself.

10. I write re the proposal for 28-34 Service St. after the November 2020 VCAT hearing has closed, and as a resident within a km. of the site. I’ve lived some 25 of my 80+ years in Hampton. So I’m ‘standing back’, as it were.
    I’ve perused most comments I could find from objectors, and found only one challenging several of the themes in them. Some opposing arguments clearly have merit: especially, I think, re privacy, scale and environmental impact.
    But here I seek mainly to give qualified support to Anthony Edwards’ words questioning much of the attack on the proposal. Behind what he writes about selfishness, wealth and government agendas lies an important bigger picture which really ought to temper this debate.
    Settler Australians have always used land without much thought. This is a proposal for re-development, which began with C19 settlement, by Ebden in Black Rock, Dendy in Brighton and many on the landscape in between, who developed grazing runs and market gardens on Aboriginal lands. Townships, then urbanisation followed, and here we are, still re-developing in 2020. Densification is not new then. It’s always a response to priorities at the time. Our macro-need, now urgent, is to slow then stop our urban sprawl: the gobbling up of greenfields acreage beyond our metro fringe proceeds apace, pushed by developers and abetted by government – all in the face of planning wisdom in a time of climate crisis. Why should Bayside’s leafy streets and low density housing be exempt from ameliorating this profligate, especially Australian environmental legacy? The model they set in part explains it. (I allow that we Australians will still seek to express our economic success materially; we just need to do that differently). As Anthony Edwards asks more bluntly: why should good public transport and schools, and exemption from affordable and more compact housing be reserved for privileged suburbs?
    Of course we could get into population policy, and the whole immigration tangle – but I’ll just stick with the changing climate: it will drive residential re-development here just as surely as the rising sea will alter the amenity and economics of Bayside’s iconic bathing box strip. It’s just a question of how and when.
    I personally think there’s a case for compensation for adjacent property owners if this proposal gets up, but there’s no tradition of such action. In any case, objectors (and indeed government) ought to be arguing for the proposal’s sophisticated, extensive re-design rather than for the retention of every house with historical character.

11. Dear Ken,

    Thank you for your detailed and well considered response

    Should you wish to reach out to me, I can be contacted at anthonylloydedwards@gmail.com

    I am always wanting to connect with clear thinkers and those who consider broader issues at play, and you, sir, have demonstrated that in a remarkable way

    Anthony

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Bayside City Council (Victoria). They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment