PlanningAlerts

33 Comments

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

1. No way. You have to be joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2. A multi storey building should not be allowed in the area. The will overlook multiple neighbouring properties and will cause traffic congestion on a narrow suburban street. The block of land also is subject to flooding and has a large easement. Where can I view the plans for this application? It also does not fit into the profile of foothills properties.

3. This is a inappropriate development for this area. It should be no more then two stories high. When council were planning an overhaul of the Upper Ferntree Gully strip the plans were knocked back by residents because we refused the new hight limits they were proposing. I guarantee no residents in Upper Ferntree Gully want developments any higher then two stories. It is grossly out of character for this area and they need to amend the plans or find a more suitable location out of the Hills!

4. Clearly, this is a brilliant, essential proposal
   to inject vital new life and meet the needs to the Upper Ferntree Gully area in the 21st Century.

   But not thwarted by the constant objectors living in the past too.

5. No no and no! I am a resident of this street and can tell you that there is already far to much traffic as it is with a Hospital, Rehabilitation Centre, Nursing home and Sports club (cricket/footy) with in 200 meters of each other. There is already not enough parking. It’s crazy on the weekends (pre covid). This would cause much more chaos in the street as the side the site is on is already no parking. A four story building would be an absolute eye sore positioned right in the middle of single level residential area. I can’t believe the council would consider such an application.

6. Development is not always bad if in the right place with infrastructure to support it but this proposal is obscene! The local train stations are already at capacity (pre covid) and the local streets definitely could not handel an extra 70-140 cars. Upwey is already a busseling town and this would put strain on its car parking and traffic flow. I would like to dispute such a large development. 5 or 10 units would be more reasonable.

7. I think this is a great idea. However the location is wrong. This will be an eyesore in the community and the privacy of all residents properties will be gone. Edward St is already a busy street with hospital parking and on the weekends it is even busier when there are sporting activities on. This cannot go ahead at all

8. Without a doubt, for the betterment of area--
   and with Hospital nearby including facilities -
   plus, a vulnerable aging population
   this must be accepted for our community and future.

9. Two storeys should be the limit in this area. If this is allowed, it won't be long before multistorey appartments are being built.

10. This will be totally inappropriate for the area, traffic in Edward St can be bad enough without building this monstrosity on a block of land that that becomes near enough to a swamp during winter. This will only make parking and travelling worse for the residents, nurses, hospital staff and visitors to the Angliss Hospital.

11. If this not approved
    our kids would never forgive us.

12. As some of these seem developer false positives, and a comment here is not an effective objection, are any neighbours going to file actual council objections?

13. This development of a private retirement village (NOT AN AGED CARE FACILITY) is going to have terrible impact on the local traffic which is already pushed to the limits with local sporting, school and the hospital. There are no benefits at all to the local community with a development such as this.
    The multi storey design of this proposal will impact all surrounding homes losing all privacy in their properties.
    This land is extremely prone to flooding and I would suggest that any soil testing will show that a development of that size could not be built on the land.
    Totally out of character to the area.
    I will be lodging a formal objection.

14. Morgan Shae, objection lodged. Traffic congestion, stormwater run off, 4 stories!! cited as main objections. Having been financially disadvantaged by the last 100 year storm in 2016, I don’t want a future storm to impact us.

15. STRONGLY RECOMMEND this as our street is rather non descript, our dreadful outdated looking street except for a few residences; Certainly need better developments addressing retirement for people, certainly most welcome.

16. This will be totally inappropriate for the area, traffic in Edward St can be bad enough without building this monstrosity on a block of land that that becomes near enough to a swamp during winter. This will only make parking and travelling worse for the residents, nurses, hospital staff and visitors to the Angliss Hospital.

17. Hidden by site administrators

18. Objections sent via email and snail mail

19. We have to be careful and see through some people who comment are actually proponents and somehow connected to the project, saying that who would want to have that monstrosity next to them or even in the street in this area which is bound or close proximity to the Dandenong Ranges. We need to keep large projects out of the area unless is absolutely necessary and doesn't detract from the environment of this unique setting.
    The area consists of larger blocks and substantially treed where possible in the Upper Ferntree Gully area where the valley runs up to Upwey.
    Amenities, parking in the narrow streets is a problem, consider the Hospital near by.we do not need more of this, developers excuses, oh there's a hospital nearby so whats one extra large building, so the next and the next eventually the area is overtaken and converted to a large business and multistory residential area and the uniqueness of the area will be lost in history forever.

20. All in all for our area
    I'm in favour for this planning application.

21. Yes this is much needed. There are very few retirement villages. Like it or not Upper Ferntree Gully needs more higher density living options. Especially this close to major amenities.

22. Anything that removes run down buildings is welcome in my neighbourhood.

    Resident since 2014

23. What a monstrosity. If this was for an apartment block it would be turned down without a second thought. An aged care is no different. This is a private development and not for the community. Dont be blinded please by the supposed community benefits. The streets in this area are horridly narrow and its close to nothing except to wheel the residents to the hospital morgue once they die. Please no.

24. Developer is currently taking to VCAT - hearing date not yet announced.
    Friend alerted that 'Urbanlife are already advertising 13 Edward Street apartments https://www.urbanlifegroup.com.au/projects
    Urbanlife's contact name is in a 2017 bankruptcy/insolvency application?
    https://www.insolvencynotices.com.au/bankruptcy/539b631a5d718aa3015d7d8dc59f0361?fbclid=IwAR2k2ue1sBtzP-hLthqX5KVtv8jXiybW17F6ci3T0D22Cz4tGN40i1D9AD8
    Other Urbanlife retirement apartments:
    Footscray's 'Saigon' towers of 260 apartments.
    13 Edward Street, Upper Ferntree Gully 'Somerton' invites buyer Expressions of Interest.
    Article in Financial Review that owners Hong Se International buy under different names including 'Dandenong Views' and lists the names of the owners https://www.afr.com/property/residential/asian-syndicate-set-to-sell-recently-settled-melbourne-site-for-a-loss-20190422-p51g4j?fbclid=IwAR1feaDBIrsPZnOLvikR-e4YKlk3VkWcsaRt1X4I-QalK0SfMwbSaIT10hs
    Also are developing the Vermont South site?'
    https://www.realcommercial.com.au/news/huge-vermont-south-development-site-listed-just-two-years-after-selling?fbclid=IwAR32fg_jnrbX9NUcEOWtRt73ybVVL0GJh9LLMV-ivW2rBb6_ge7X08XZEqc

25. Thank you Ferntree Gully resident for digging deeper and finding more information on this development. It worries me that they are already advertising when it hasn't even been heard at VCAT, they are obviously confident that this will go ahead. Knox Council need to be all over this to stop it, it's totally inappropriate for this site and area.

26. Danielle, did you read the Financial Review Article, that Hong Se International was also the developer of the Ferntree Gully Quarry site for about 200 townhouses.
    The Australian end of Urbanlife, asking for Expressions of Interest for Somerton at 13 Edward Street Upper Ferntree Gully are the Harrisons
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/charissa-harrison-b4b74639/?originalSubdomain=au
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dale-harrison-19780728/?originalSubdomain=au
    https://www.insolvencynotices.com.au/bankruptcy/539b631a5d718aa3015d7d8dc59f0361?fbclid=IwAR2k2ue1sBtzP-hLthqX5KVtv8jXiybW17F6ci3T0D22Cz4tGN40i1D9AD8
    https://www.urbanlifegroup.com.au/projects

27. Hong Se International is also known as Heng Si International, and Panorama Investment Group https://www.cbre.com.au/about/media-center/deal-marks-melbournes-largest-permit-approved-townhouse-site-sale-for-2019
    Financial Review article 2020 https://www.afr.com/property/residential/chinese-developer-adds-23m-townhouse-site-to-melbourne-pipeline-20191227-p53n45
    'In November 2016, the same developer paid $36 million for a 1.4 hectare site at 615 Warrigal Road in Ashwood in the South East for a $130 million mixed-use project. It also owns sites in Hawthorn and Essendon.
    All are owned under the name Panorama Investment. No company named either Heng Si or Hong Se is registered in Australia, according to searches of ASIC records.'

28. Panorama Investment Group's website http://panoramaboxhill.com.au/team/
    towers in Box Hill with private login access for agents working for them
    http://www.panoramagroup.net.au

29. Serious this is so wrong in so many ways.
    My Objection was submitted and I am still fighting it.....

    The protection overlay is in place to protect this sensitive area and there should be NO option for appeal.

    This development is inappropiate to the size of land, location and impact it will have on its residents whether you have lived here short or long term..Yes a retirement village has merrits in the area but NOT at this location and 3 - 4 stories high!!!!

    Has there been a management plan on how the development will take place whilst School children make their way to School safely, Child care centre drop off and pick up, Sporting groups & hospital visitors struggle to find parking now, my head spins at the thought of trucks, cranes,concrete the size of ?? and how many workers would have to be on site ?? oh and lets not consider the noise impact either and for how long..

    How can Urbanlife group be advertising this development when it has NOT been overturned by VCAT?? It is still under review and will be heard on the 24th May 2021... Wrong Wrong.. or is there something we are all missing, the developer is prepared to pay what ever price is required to get what they want!!!! and we the residents have NO further options for a right of appeal to VCAT...

30. Susan there are others standing up to fight it too. Are you on FB? A post was shared last week with details of a group who are trying to organise a meeting with concerned residents. I can't post their private contact details here though, I'm not sure how to get them to you. I received a letter from the developer's lawyers last week with amendments they've made but the shear size is just so inappropriate for this location. I just hope council win when it is heard at VCAT but I'm with you there should of been no right to appeal!

31. UrbanLife has recently removed the retirement village addresses from their website of 13 Edward St, Upper Ferntree Gully, ‘Somerton’, 63-67 Nicholson St, Footscray ‘Saigon’, 280-288 Millers Rd, Altona North, and 490-500 Burwood Hwy, Vermont South, just leaving the suburb locations.
    [Sentence removed by administrators]
    Have you noticed UrbanLife's Ringwood Office, painted with greenery and an Aboriginal man's portrait, parading as a 'green', when it destroys our environment with their over-developments.

32. Sorry, a mistake in previous comment UrbanLife in Ringwood is not UrbanLifeGroup who are developing 13 Edward Street, Upper Ferntree Gully.
    UrbanLifeGroup has recently removed the retirement village addresses from their website of 13 Edward St, Upper Ferntree Gully, ‘Somerton’, 63-67 Nicholson St, Footscray ‘Saigon’, 280-288 Millers Rd, Altona North, and 490-500 Burwood Hwy, Vermont South, just leaving the suburb locations.
    [Sentence removed by administrators]

33. Another 'Box Hill' development in the making if this monstrosity goes ahead! Edward St is so terribly busy at the best of times. Trucks are constantly doing deliveries to the hospital, sporting events are held on the oval and are an important part of the life and wellbeing for the youth and local community. There is the playground for children on the corner where parent can take their children to play and this is another important venue which would be affected by a constant stream of cars. Parking is already an issue and this proposal would deplete parking for the already used up bays. and the residents are already having to put up with cars parking in the street. This street is not suitable for such a development. As i mentioned....we do not want to see a future 'Box Hill' honing into the Dandenongs.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Knox 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