PlanningAlerts

1 Comment

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

1. To the planning authority Frankston City Council.

   I have viewed the plans and planning documents and strongly object to the proposed two( 2) dwellings on a lot and ultimate subdivision of 174 & 176 Overport Road, Frankston South.
   Application Number 162/2020/P

   The subject site is located in Frankston South Precinct Eight ( FSO8) A low density residential area of large houses on extensive grounds in an environmentally sensitive rural bush setting. It is a minimal change area in Frankston's Housing Strategy.
   
   The proposal seeks to build a second dwelling on a lot less than 2500 sq m ( Lot 2) which is at odds with the minimal allotment size in DDO1 and for the FS08 area.

   The proposal is sited within a significant landscape overlay SLO3 and designated a minimal change area in the Frankston Housing Strategy 2018 . Minimal change areas were created to further protect the significant and established environmental, neighbourhood character and heritage values of designated residential areas.

   The proposal seeks to retain just two (2) trees, with all remaining trees and vegetation to create Lot 2 to be removed. The proposal fails to avoid or minimize vegetation and canopy tree loss and therefore also fails to contribute to the maintenance or enhancement of the low density treed character of Frankston South. Disturbingly it appears ( when viewing the background in the pictures of tree 17, tree 19 and tree 13 in the arborist report) that mature trees have been felled prior to submitting the application.

   The combined site coverage of the proposed Building, Carport, Driveway, Swimming Pool, Entertainment area and Paths in Lot 2 do not enable enough space for substantial planting of vegetation and the inclusion of canopy trees - both of which define the character of Frankston South and support and protect Frankston South’s environmental and biodiversity attributes. This lack of space may explain why a landscape plan for Lot 2 did not form part of this application.

   The proposal also seeks the removal of numerous dead trees ( stags) Of particular concern is the proposed removal of the stag on the western boundary ( Tree 1) to facilitate the proposed easement. 5 years ago this was a living tree (Eucalyptus sp.) albeit in a declined state. It was felled in a sensitive way as to retain it’s hollows. The proposals arboricultural report failed to note/observe the hollows present in that stag ( Tree 1). It is therefore safe to assume that hollows, nesting sites and the presence of Fauna were also not noted/observed by the arborist throughout the subject site. How will wildlife be protected? Hollows can take up to 100 years to form and they provide shelter and nesting sites for so many of our native animals. Natural habitat for our native animals, including tree hollows are being destroyed at an alarming rate, resulting in diminished numbers and/or unsustainable remaining populations. The presence of native animals and the provision of habitat is also a significant element of the character of Frankston South.

   The proposal’s use of clause 52.12-2 to seek exemption for a permit to remove vegetation and trees to facilitate the proposed driveway of Lot 2 is flawed. Clause 52.12-2 in relation to clearing vegetation along a boundary fence directs that a maximum combined width of four metres of vegetation can be removed along an existing property boundary fence. The maximum width of four metres can be divided in any manner that the two landowners agree to. For example, two metres either side of the fence, or one metre on one side and three metres on the other side. As the driveway of 176 Overport road runs parallel to the proposed driveway of Lot 2 and currently provides a large vegetation free width of ‘defendable space’ along the full length of western boundary the requirements of clause 52.12-2 are already met.

   The proposal is situated in a Bushfire Prone area and therefore Clause 13.02-1S must be considered when assessing the application, particularly ‘Use and development control in a Bushfire Prone Area’ and ‘Areas of biodiversity conservation value’

   The proposed driveway width ( 3 meters) of Lot 2 appears not adequate to allow the safe access for fire trucks. Provision for an adequate turning circle for emergency services including fire trucks should also be required.

   The proposed areas set aside for ‘landscaping’ either side of Lot 2’s proposed driveway ( 750mm either side) do not allow enough space for meaningful planting or the inclusion for planting canopy trees. Furthermore, the proposed driveway of Lot 2 runs parallel to the existing driveway of 176 Overport road- and if allowed to proceed would result in a vast, wide, non vegetated expanse which would negatively impact the streetscape thus character of the area.

   The proposed easement to facilitate egress from Lot 2 is not compliant with accessway objectives or reflects the pattern of development in this locale. Furthermore, the junction of the proposed easement with the driveway of 176 Overport Road poses a risk for collisions and denies the opportunity for planting vegetation or trees on the corner boundary splay.

   I chose to live in Frankston South because of the single houses on large treed ‘leafy’ blocks and the rural ‘bush like’ setting which supports our native animals. If given approval the proposal will affect me for all the aforementioned reasons as it will have a negative impact on the character and biodiversity of my neighbourhood.

   I thank Council for considering my objection and urge Council not to let this inappropriate proposal proceed.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Frankston City Council. 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