432 Glenfern Road, Upwey VIC 3158

Buildings and works to construct four dwellings and four lot subdivision

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 22 days ago. It was received by them 25 days earlier.

(Source: Yarra Ranges Shire Council, reference YR-2018/97/A)

6 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Jane Malone commented

    They’re already trying to sell these on realestate.com.au. The design is ugly. If council permits this then should allow other homeowners in the area to do whatever they like because it shows a lack of consistency in planning. The developers couldn’t make up their mind on a facade so they slapped four together. This is distasteful and unsuitable for the area but I doubt council will deny it, as most likely someone knows someone and money will exchange hands. How long until these are knocked down again? Given their design id say 10 years tops. You won’t allow buildings to be taller than 8.5 metres on a sloping block but you’ll allow this monstrosity to go ahead. I don’t know what’s more criminal, this design or the price they’ll inevitably charge for single pane windows and draughty air conditioning dependent townhouses.

  2. Noel Dodds commented

    Noel Dodds
    Why was I denied permission to build three up market single story units when I owned 432 Glenfern Road ........Bribery and corruption at the council ?

  3. Norm Delmas commented

    What's this about... the Developer seeking amendment to what appears to be already approved?
    Image 23 /30 [Plans] on realestate.com.au show Council Planning Dept stamp dated Feb. 2019

    This proposal is indeed UGLY, like sheds with shipping containers plonked atop. And lets see, is that 4 bedrooms per dwelling?
    Looks like intended for student or backpacker accommodation. Isn't there a requirement for more than 2 car parking bays per dwelling based on number of bedrooms?
    Then there is visitor parking.
    Ohhhhh , let me guess, Developer sought dispensation from car parking provision... based on what?

    BAL 2.5 hazard risk. Looks like flammable cladding.

    Where are the rainwater tanks? Someone forgot about the fact we live in a drought prone environment too?

    I have made no donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee, ever.
    Had the Applicant for this pitiful excuse for modern, COMPLIANT architecture, cramped in to extract the maximum 'potential' while using cheap arse materials sure to be dated and fall apart in 20 years?

    Rubbish like this gets past Councillors' attention if people do not make objection... but even then the Planning staff end up selling the crap and deciding under their own authority, and defending it for the Developer at VCAT. Council is defacto developer. Then there is what seems to be a hidden agenda at that Council to encourage crap like this, another 'decision' made behind closed doors. WHY?

    What's Noel got to say about this?

  4. Norm Delmas commented

    What's this about... the Developer seeking amendment to what appears to be already approved?
    Image 23 /30 [Plans] on realestate.com.au show Council Planning Dept stamp dated Feb. 2019

    This proposal is indeed UGLY, like sheds with shipping containers plonked atop. And lets see, is that 4 bedrooms per dwelling?
    Looks like intended for student or backpacker accommodation. Isn't there a requirement for more than 2 car parking bays per dwelling based on number of bedrooms?
    Then there is visitor parking.
    Ohhhhh , let me guess, Developer sought dispensation from car parking provision... based on what?

    BAL 2.5 hazard risk. Looks like flammable cladding.

    Where are the rainwater tanks? Someone forgot about the fact we live in a drought prone environment too?

    I have made no donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee, ever.
    Had the Applicant for this pitiful excuse for modern, COMPLIANT architecture, cramped in to extract the maximum 'potential' while using cheap arse materials sure to be dated and fall apart in 20 years?

    Rubbish like this gets past Councillors' attention if people do not make objection... but even then the Planning staff end up selling the crap and deciding under their own authority, and defending it for the Developer at VCAT. Council is defacto developer. Then there is what seems to be a hidden agenda at that Council to encourage crap like this, another 'decision' made behind closed doors. WHY?

    What's Noel got to say about this?

  5. Noel Dodds commented

    Noel Dodds
    I agree with your comments, I can also see more traffic accidents on entering and exiting the developments, Glenfern road as become a busy thoroughfare in the last few years.
    As the council changed the rules since I applied or does money count.

  6. Norm Delmas commented

    Mr Dodds,

    Agreed, traffic conditions at this location have changed, and cumulative impacts trough Council allowing dispensation from on-site parking and increases in urban density add to that - something Council don't consider, as we see in the Car parking situation in Belgrave where every proposal seeks such decrease in obvious increase in vehicle activity.

    The images on real estate sales site are interesting. I have NO GOOD to say of surface parasites like real estate scumbags that 'talk the market up'... then there is the greed element of other landholders who sit back and dream of inflated property prices, motivated to do nothing to make any objection on these exhaustive use Applications. It's fair assumption to say these 'artist interpretations' are straight from the slick Developer Application to Council. On that, why the images of Upwey High School? Argument to suggest the 'contemporary'* architectural style is 'normal' in the precinct.... it is not.
    * The word 'contemporary' appears in precinct specific planning 'rules' (DDO) of intent to protect neighbourhood character by lower visual impact, but has contradictory meanings - the Developer will argue it means 'modern' as opposed to of the era style presenting in the precinct. Council & VCAT support the former (modern) interpretation, which is a sham of the whole process. Turns out, Development Design Overlays you think protect neighbourhood character are worthless, weasel worded, rhetorical BS and Council knows this. You have been conned, folks.

    Yes, changes in the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme have occurred over time and are well documented by annotation in these documents. Basically, made it easier for increase in urban density, in accordance to various State Planning Policy changes. Yep, to increase density and Developer profit.
    Ohhh ... and any cases argued rationally at VCAT, often approved with addiytional Conditions Council were too slack to apply in the first place, stand as precedent and used to argue the case for subsequent Applications, notwithstanding very liberal concessions by the determining authority - cue up the cumulative impacts, again.
    Council submits any amendment proposals they seek to initiate, then State Planning Minister approves. Plenty of changes occurred under scummy developer friendly Liberal administrations. Plenty of Applications before Council meetings (not all get 'argued' there) are supported by long in the tooth grubs representing precincts far from the subject area with clear affiliation to that Liberal Party, Real Estate and 'business' interests.... using the same rhetoric as the Developer that has lobbied heavily.

    Further comment to the Application plans:
    I see no details on the plans showing turning circles of vehicles.
    I see no details showing location of waste bins.
    I see no details of landscape treatments in accordance to BAL2.5
    Note: This development proposal is not in keeping with other construction currently underway that are NOT 4x sub-division of similar sized allotments in Glenfern Road.

    Again Council, is this Application up for amendment, has it been already approved under delegate authority, and if so, is this an Application to seek amendment?
    Perhaps this is a glitch in the PlanningAlerts site, or appeared due to late lodgment by Council of application documentation on the public record... conveniently long after the fact.
    btw, Council. You have done nothing to address clear violations of Building codes in Tecoma, as reported months ago. The COVID-19 argument don't hold water for this inaction on that grubby, repeat offender landholder.

  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